Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I am an admirer of Sean Wilentz as an historian. For months now, it has been my intention to comment on his brilliant synthesis, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (even more so since I began reading Daniel Walker Howe's brilliant rebuttal, from the Whig point of view, and closer to my way of thinking, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848).
Notwithstanding, Professor Wilentz is a very political historian. And by that I don't mean he is primarily concerned with the history of dead white men; this is also true in part--but that is not my point. Sean Wilentz is an extreme Democratic Party partisan, who does not hesitate to bring his training, reputation, and rhetorical ability to bear in support of his deeply held political beliefs. For example, Professor Wilentz organized the "400 Historians Against Impeachment" back in 1998, which gave scholarly cover to the Clinton campaign to stay in office at all costs.
Almost always I disagree with Professor Wilentz's political crusades, and I have generally criticized his penchant for couching naked politics in scholarly drapery. However, his article published in the New Republic today offers staggeringly insightful analysis (read that to mean he agrees with me). In fact, he even borrows the same title (unknowingly) that I used a few days ago: "Race Man."
An excerpt from the Wilentz piece:
“A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card' were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the 'race-baiter card' before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.”
Read this long article in full here. It is the most trenchant analysis to date concerning this exceedingly important question.
Notwithstanding, Professor Wilentz is a very political historian. And by that I don't mean he is primarily concerned with the history of dead white men; this is also true in part--but that is not my point. Sean Wilentz is an extreme Democratic Party partisan, who does not hesitate to bring his training, reputation, and rhetorical ability to bear in support of his deeply held political beliefs. For example, Professor Wilentz organized the "400 Historians Against Impeachment" back in 1998, which gave scholarly cover to the Clinton campaign to stay in office at all costs.
Almost always I disagree with Professor Wilentz's political crusades, and I have generally criticized his penchant for couching naked politics in scholarly drapery. However, his article published in the New Republic today offers staggeringly insightful analysis (read that to mean he agrees with me). In fact, he even borrows the same title (unknowingly) that I used a few days ago: "Race Man."
An excerpt from the Wilentz piece:
“A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card' were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the 'race-baiter card' before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.”
Read this long article in full here. It is the most trenchant analysis to date concerning this exceedingly important question.
Briefly...
From the Washington Post:
"The [Cuban] National Assembly bypassed a younger generation of politicians and named Fidel Castro's brother, Raúl, as president [on Sunday]...."
"The unanimous decision dealt a blow to Cubans who had hoped Sunday would mark a dramatic change of direction for the island nation ruled for nearly five decades by Fidel Castro, 81, who announced Tuesday that he was stepping down after a long illness."
"Raúl Castro, 76, promised to complete his brother's work...."
"{The Assembly named] José Ramón Machado Ventura, 77, as vice president, who fought with the Castro brothers during the Cuban Revolution."
1. So much for a "change you can believe in" for Cuba.
2. These guys make John McCain seem positively youthful.
One other note: according to NPR reporting, the initial announcement regarding Fidel's retirement appeared only in the single state-owned newspaper. Moreover, the announcement was exclusive to the online version of the organ--which was fine--except the internet is forbidden for regular Cubans.
Cuba Libre!
From the Washington Post:
"The [Cuban] National Assembly bypassed a younger generation of politicians and named Fidel Castro's brother, Raúl, as president [on Sunday]...."
"The unanimous decision dealt a blow to Cubans who had hoped Sunday would mark a dramatic change of direction for the island nation ruled for nearly five decades by Fidel Castro, 81, who announced Tuesday that he was stepping down after a long illness."
"Raúl Castro, 76, promised to complete his brother's work...."
"{The Assembly named] José Ramón Machado Ventura, 77, as vice president, who fought with the Castro brothers during the Cuban Revolution."
1. So much for a "change you can believe in" for Cuba.
2. These guys make John McCain seem positively youthful.
One other note: according to NPR reporting, the initial announcement regarding Fidel's retirement appeared only in the single state-owned newspaper. Moreover, the announcement was exclusive to the online version of the organ--which was fine--except the internet is forbidden for regular Cubans.
Cuba Libre!
Friday I attended the 61st Annual Convention of the Texas Community College Teachers Association. As I have written in the past, I love these convocations. They are almost always moments of great fellowship among colleagues and very often remarkable for the memorable encounters with visiting scholars.
I intend to blog on several of the sessions I attended, but let us begin with a discussion of "It's the 60's Stupid," which featured Professor Steve Gillon, "resident historian for The History Channel and professor of history at the University of Oklahoma."
Adding to his many titles, Professor Gillon is the author of an upcoming study of modern political history, The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation. Based on his thinking, interviewing, and writing for The Pact, he arrived at this important conclusion:
The 1960s, or, more precisely, the battle over the meaning of the 1960s, more than any other single element, has come to define the battle lines in American politics. Gillon offers this succinct and cogent Bill Clinton quote to illustrate his point:
"If you believed the 1960s were good, you are a liberal; if you believed the 1960s were bad, you are most likely a conservative."
Gillon asserts that the 1960s produced a "culture of choice." The 1960s blurred the clear lines of morality based on tradition. We once lived in an America in which we shared a common sense of right and wrong. We live today in a society in which we can choose our own values--not that there is anything wrong with that.
The political debate today, says Gillon, revolves around proponents of this new "culture of choice" and the adherents of the traditional "culture of authority."
Why did conservatives hate Bill Clinton so much? Ostensibly, Clinton offered much for them to like: he was a Southern Baptist, "New Democrat" speaking the language of small government, individual responsibility, and law and order. Why the enormous antipathy for Bill Clinton from the very beginning of his national career?
The first "child of the sixties" to be elected president, Clinton represented the triumph of this alternative culture of choice. While there were less obvious signals from the earliest days of his public life, the Lewinsky episode placed the cultural conflict in plain view. What was the transcendent argument beneath the tawdry surface of L'affaire Lewinsky? The culture of choice created a "realm of privacy" in which consensual sex among adults must never be subject to moral authority or corporate scrutiny. As Clinton defended himself with exegeses concerning the "meaning of is," nonplussed conservatives wondered: "Where is the Outrage?"
Who is winning this war over competing cultures?
Certainly, the Republicans made great strides harnessing the conservative backlash following the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s. The GOP embraced the mantle of traditional values to great success, winning the presidency seven out of ten times from 1968 to 2004, and establishing itself as the majority party from 1994 through 2006. The secret to their success? Professor Gillon offers this absolutely brilliant observation: conservatives created a language of "cultural populism."
The Democratic Party realignment achieved under Franklin Roosevelt during the New Deal era (which lasted for forty years) rested upon the language of "economic populism." The Democrats became the party of the little man, beating back "economic royalists" intent on crushing powerless working people. But the turmoil of the 1960s allowed the Republican Party to craft a message that also appealed to the working man (albeit in a different key), as so many Americans saw the moral foundations of the world they understood crashing down around them.
I have previously referred to this mass appeal as a general feeling that the GOP was the "party of common sense":
The Republican Party has become the party of common sense. We have approximately 12 million undocumented (illegal) immigrants in our country. We should do something to stop that. Common Sense. Terrorists are trying to kill us. We should try to kill them first. We should treat them roughly and follow them around and listen to what they are saying on their cell phones. Common Sense. America is a good place. That is why so many people are trying to come here. Common Sense. Men should marry women. Common sense. Lower taxes and smaller government good; an intrusive and bloated federal government that sees our collective pocketbook as a blank check is bad. Common Sense. Peace through strength. Common Sense. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Common Sense. Put criminals in jail, and they will commit fewer crimes. Common Sense. And I could go on.
Sometimes the simplest answer really is the best answer.
Of course, "common sense" is not always right: the Earth really does revolve around the sun--regardless of the way things look. Sometimes the world really is "complicated" and "common sense" solutions are only manifestly obvious from a certain perspective--often the majority perspective.
An Aside: another way to articulate this divide might be "common sense" versus "complexity." Ronald Reagan saw the USSR as an "evil empire," while others in the "party of complexity" seemed paralyzed by the ambiguity in the communist experiment.
Gillon sees two fundamental challenges to continued Republican success through cultural populism (at least in the short term):
The GOP runs the risk of becoming the party of nostalgia and ridiculous hypocrisy.
The old moral values are more and more anachronistic. Most Americans do not really understand the old value system--and almost no one wants to hold themselves to those old more rigorous and confining standards. That is, even the proponents of a culture of authority for greater society seem to prefer a culture of choice for themselves. Gillon: "We have accepted the culture of choice for ourselves, even as we cling to the authority rhetoric of the past."
Example: Larry Craig. The great danger for the moral party is that they will consistently fail to live out the values they preach. As the gap between rhetoric ("moral virtue") and reality ("wide stance') becomes a chasm, the risk is great that the morality play will become farce.
My thoughts: Perhaps Professor Gillon places too much emphasis on highly charged words such as "morality" and "choice." The party of "authority" is at an increasing disadvantage in the modern world. However, if you tweak the language some, the party of "common sense" will always be viable. We are a people who believe in revival and renewal. We are a nation of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. We are a species that often comes back to basics in our perpetual search for meaning. My prediction: the party of tradition will survive.
Final Thought: Professor Gillon offers a provocative framework for the present political predicament through a provocative understanding of our recent past. I look forward to reading his book.
I intend to blog on several of the sessions I attended, but let us begin with a discussion of "It's the 60's Stupid," which featured Professor Steve Gillon, "resident historian for The History Channel and professor of history at the University of Oklahoma."
Adding to his many titles, Professor Gillon is the author of an upcoming study of modern political history, The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation. Based on his thinking, interviewing, and writing for The Pact, he arrived at this important conclusion:
The 1960s, or, more precisely, the battle over the meaning of the 1960s, more than any other single element, has come to define the battle lines in American politics. Gillon offers this succinct and cogent Bill Clinton quote to illustrate his point:
"If you believed the 1960s were good, you are a liberal; if you believed the 1960s were bad, you are most likely a conservative."
Gillon asserts that the 1960s produced a "culture of choice." The 1960s blurred the clear lines of morality based on tradition. We once lived in an America in which we shared a common sense of right and wrong. We live today in a society in which we can choose our own values--not that there is anything wrong with that.
The political debate today, says Gillon, revolves around proponents of this new "culture of choice" and the adherents of the traditional "culture of authority."
Why did conservatives hate Bill Clinton so much? Ostensibly, Clinton offered much for them to like: he was a Southern Baptist, "New Democrat" speaking the language of small government, individual responsibility, and law and order. Why the enormous antipathy for Bill Clinton from the very beginning of his national career?
The first "child of the sixties" to be elected president, Clinton represented the triumph of this alternative culture of choice. While there were less obvious signals from the earliest days of his public life, the Lewinsky episode placed the cultural conflict in plain view. What was the transcendent argument beneath the tawdry surface of L'affaire Lewinsky? The culture of choice created a "realm of privacy" in which consensual sex among adults must never be subject to moral authority or corporate scrutiny. As Clinton defended himself with exegeses concerning the "meaning of is," nonplussed conservatives wondered: "Where is the Outrage?"
Who is winning this war over competing cultures?
Certainly, the Republicans made great strides harnessing the conservative backlash following the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s. The GOP embraced the mantle of traditional values to great success, winning the presidency seven out of ten times from 1968 to 2004, and establishing itself as the majority party from 1994 through 2006. The secret to their success? Professor Gillon offers this absolutely brilliant observation: conservatives created a language of "cultural populism."
The Democratic Party realignment achieved under Franklin Roosevelt during the New Deal era (which lasted for forty years) rested upon the language of "economic populism." The Democrats became the party of the little man, beating back "economic royalists" intent on crushing powerless working people. But the turmoil of the 1960s allowed the Republican Party to craft a message that also appealed to the working man (albeit in a different key), as so many Americans saw the moral foundations of the world they understood crashing down around them.
I have previously referred to this mass appeal as a general feeling that the GOP was the "party of common sense":
The Republican Party has become the party of common sense. We have approximately 12 million undocumented (illegal) immigrants in our country. We should do something to stop that. Common Sense. Terrorists are trying to kill us. We should try to kill them first. We should treat them roughly and follow them around and listen to what they are saying on their cell phones. Common Sense. America is a good place. That is why so many people are trying to come here. Common Sense. Men should marry women. Common sense. Lower taxes and smaller government good; an intrusive and bloated federal government that sees our collective pocketbook as a blank check is bad. Common Sense. Peace through strength. Common Sense. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Common Sense. Put criminals in jail, and they will commit fewer crimes. Common Sense. And I could go on.
Sometimes the simplest answer really is the best answer.
Of course, "common sense" is not always right: the Earth really does revolve around the sun--regardless of the way things look. Sometimes the world really is "complicated" and "common sense" solutions are only manifestly obvious from a certain perspective--often the majority perspective.
An Aside: another way to articulate this divide might be "common sense" versus "complexity." Ronald Reagan saw the USSR as an "evil empire," while others in the "party of complexity" seemed paralyzed by the ambiguity in the communist experiment.
Gillon sees two fundamental challenges to continued Republican success through cultural populism (at least in the short term):
The GOP runs the risk of becoming the party of nostalgia and ridiculous hypocrisy.
The old moral values are more and more anachronistic. Most Americans do not really understand the old value system--and almost no one wants to hold themselves to those old more rigorous and confining standards. That is, even the proponents of a culture of authority for greater society seem to prefer a culture of choice for themselves. Gillon: "We have accepted the culture of choice for ourselves, even as we cling to the authority rhetoric of the past."
Example: Larry Craig. The great danger for the moral party is that they will consistently fail to live out the values they preach. As the gap between rhetoric ("moral virtue") and reality ("wide stance') becomes a chasm, the risk is great that the morality play will become farce.
My thoughts: Perhaps Professor Gillon places too much emphasis on highly charged words such as "morality" and "choice." The party of "authority" is at an increasing disadvantage in the modern world. However, if you tweak the language some, the party of "common sense" will always be viable. We are a people who believe in revival and renewal. We are a nation of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. We are a species that often comes back to basics in our perpetual search for meaning. My prediction: the party of tradition will survive.
Final Thought: Professor Gillon offers a provocative framework for the present political predicament through a provocative understanding of our recent past. I look forward to reading his book.
21/02: A 21st-Century Race Man?
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.
We are on the precipice of electing the least-qualified and, based on experience and resume, the most unlikely president in the 220-year history of the United States. Barack Obama is a man about whom we know almost nothing--but upon whom we find it easy to project our most optimistic collective aspirations. He is part philosopher king and part American Idol.
The most important element in the Obama fairytale?
Race. Yes. He is handsome. He is tall. He is a mesmerizer. He is a good family man. He is evidently extraordinarily virtuous. But let us be honest. We are about to elect this darkest of dark horses not in spite of his race--but because of it.
For a whole host of white folks in America (many of whom are conservative) Obama personifies racial reconciliation. To be even more precise, for many, he represents a form of racial redemption, even reparation. If we as a people can elect a person of color to the highest, most cherished, and most respected office in the land, we finally fulfill, in a demonstrably practical way, our national creed: all men created equal.
In a way, I agree with Michelle Obama that this is a generation of Americans of whom we should be rightfully proud; they desperately want to bury the ghosts of the past. However, this fact should come as no surprise to any fair-minded observer; this collective desire for racial salvation has been a long time coming, and the manifestations of this "hunger" have been all around us for decades.
An Aside: Americans are a good people on so many levels. Some other time we can discuss the basic goodness of America at length. In short, I am slightly offended and greatly saddened by Michelle Obama's facile declaration.
What is our racial future?
Historian Joseph Ellis recently asserted with some judgmental sadness that the founders, for all their glorious vision, could not imagine a biracial society. In truth, history has not proven them wrong. They thought the transition from a slave culture to a racially harmonious society impossible. For the most part, they believed (see Jefferson for the most famous example of this thinking) that African Americans could never forgive white America for "thousands of provocations" during the long dark period of violent subjugation. Jefferson feared black-on-white reprisals and a "race war." Even more importantly, Jefferson and his generation could not foresee a day in which whites ever fully accepted blacks as equal citizens. Jefferson (and later Lincoln) predicted a humiliating and ultimately unsatisfactory second-class citizenship status in a white-controlled world for the sons and grandsons of freed slaves.
Were they wrong? How long after emancipation did white America hold back full citizenship from black America? Has black America forgiven white America for the injustices of the past?
Michelle Obama's comments betray this remaining fissure in the American family. While a huge segment (perhaps a vast majority) of white America desires a new day of racial equality and common cause, too many black opinion makers continue to dwell on the inequities of the recent past. Barack Obama's decision to embrace the black side of his inheritance and virtually ignore the white family that raised him is also significant. Of course, it is important to note, as many commentators have done already, that persons with "black blood," historically, have not had the luxury of choosing which race to embrace.
On the other hand, what the founders may not have considered, and what Barack Obama seems to personify (if not always articulate), is the future of America as a multi-racial and mixed-race society rather than a bi-racial one.
~~Michelle Obama
We are on the precipice of electing the least-qualified and, based on experience and resume, the most unlikely president in the 220-year history of the United States. Barack Obama is a man about whom we know almost nothing--but upon whom we find it easy to project our most optimistic collective aspirations. He is part philosopher king and part American Idol.
The most important element in the Obama fairytale?
Race. Yes. He is handsome. He is tall. He is a mesmerizer. He is a good family man. He is evidently extraordinarily virtuous. But let us be honest. We are about to elect this darkest of dark horses not in spite of his race--but because of it.
For a whole host of white folks in America (many of whom are conservative) Obama personifies racial reconciliation. To be even more precise, for many, he represents a form of racial redemption, even reparation. If we as a people can elect a person of color to the highest, most cherished, and most respected office in the land, we finally fulfill, in a demonstrably practical way, our national creed: all men created equal.
In a way, I agree with Michelle Obama that this is a generation of Americans of whom we should be rightfully proud; they desperately want to bury the ghosts of the past. However, this fact should come as no surprise to any fair-minded observer; this collective desire for racial salvation has been a long time coming, and the manifestations of this "hunger" have been all around us for decades.
An Aside: Americans are a good people on so many levels. Some other time we can discuss the basic goodness of America at length. In short, I am slightly offended and greatly saddened by Michelle Obama's facile declaration.
What is our racial future?
Historian Joseph Ellis recently asserted with some judgmental sadness that the founders, for all their glorious vision, could not imagine a biracial society. In truth, history has not proven them wrong. They thought the transition from a slave culture to a racially harmonious society impossible. For the most part, they believed (see Jefferson for the most famous example of this thinking) that African Americans could never forgive white America for "thousands of provocations" during the long dark period of violent subjugation. Jefferson feared black-on-white reprisals and a "race war." Even more importantly, Jefferson and his generation could not foresee a day in which whites ever fully accepted blacks as equal citizens. Jefferson (and later Lincoln) predicted a humiliating and ultimately unsatisfactory second-class citizenship status in a white-controlled world for the sons and grandsons of freed slaves.
Were they wrong? How long after emancipation did white America hold back full citizenship from black America? Has black America forgiven white America for the injustices of the past?
Michelle Obama's comments betray this remaining fissure in the American family. While a huge segment (perhaps a vast majority) of white America desires a new day of racial equality and common cause, too many black opinion makers continue to dwell on the inequities of the recent past. Barack Obama's decision to embrace the black side of his inheritance and virtually ignore the white family that raised him is also significant. Of course, it is important to note, as many commentators have done already, that persons with "black blood," historically, have not had the luxury of choosing which race to embrace.
On the other hand, what the founders may not have considered, and what Barack Obama seems to personify (if not always articulate), is the future of America as a multi-racial and mixed-race society rather than a bi-racial one.
A prediction: as more and more liberal commentators and newsreaders castigate McCain for being a conservative, the more conservatives will develop warm feelings for him. Many of us hate him as a result of the people who seem to fawn over him. Ironically, by November, most of us will like him in reaction to the same coterie of jackals, who will excoriate him relentlessly for his admirable lifetime record of defending the things we hold dear.
The mainstream media barrage upon the presumptive Republican nominee has officially begun--albeit with a surprising lack of subtlety.
Page One of the New York Times, the paper of record for the axis of liberalism in America, charges today that John McCain engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a beautiful female lobbyist thirty-years his junior.
The New York Times evidently sat on this story since December. Why?
The main thrust of the story--McCain and the young femme fatale--allegedly transpired nearly a decade ago. Again, why now?
An Aside: according to the Times, this relationship reached its peak during the year prior to McCain's unsuccessful run for the White House in 2000. If true, the Bushies, who ran the most "despicable whispering campaign in the history of American politics," somehow missed this major story that the Times somehow uncovered through good solid investigative journalism. Kudos to the Gray Lady. They must be smoking big fat cigars over there on Eighth this morning.
Okay. So what?
Here is how the Times will try to play this story? They have already floated the idea that conservative opponents of McCain were shopping this scandal. Perhaps this is true. Of course, the Times must contend with the question as to why the same story was unworthy of publication back when the revelation might have helped some of McCain's Republican opponents--but it is now in the public interest to air all of this now that McCain's opponent is most likely Barack Obama--who, ironically, is currently in minor trouble with the press for the first time in his magical campaign.
So, in a perfect New York Times world, this story will further torpedo McCain with social conservatives, while at the same time affixing guilt for the bloody work on them as well.
We will see how well that works. It will be a hard sell--but the Huffington Post crowd will surely swallow the double-reverse conspiratorial narrative hook, line, and sinker.
~~Bosque Boys, 10 days ago
The mainstream media barrage upon the presumptive Republican nominee has officially begun--albeit with a surprising lack of subtlety.
Page One of the New York Times, the paper of record for the axis of liberalism in America, charges today that John McCain engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a beautiful female lobbyist thirty-years his junior.
The New York Times evidently sat on this story since December. Why?
The main thrust of the story--McCain and the young femme fatale--allegedly transpired nearly a decade ago. Again, why now?
An Aside: according to the Times, this relationship reached its peak during the year prior to McCain's unsuccessful run for the White House in 2000. If true, the Bushies, who ran the most "despicable whispering campaign in the history of American politics," somehow missed this major story that the Times somehow uncovered through good solid investigative journalism. Kudos to the Gray Lady. They must be smoking big fat cigars over there on Eighth this morning.
Okay. So what?
Here is how the Times will try to play this story? They have already floated the idea that conservative opponents of McCain were shopping this scandal. Perhaps this is true. Of course, the Times must contend with the question as to why the same story was unworthy of publication back when the revelation might have helped some of McCain's Republican opponents--but it is now in the public interest to air all of this now that McCain's opponent is most likely Barack Obama--who, ironically, is currently in minor trouble with the press for the first time in his magical campaign.
So, in a perfect New York Times world, this story will further torpedo McCain with social conservatives, while at the same time affixing guilt for the bloody work on them as well.
We will see how well that works. It will be a hard sell--but the Huffington Post crowd will surely swallow the double-reverse conspiratorial narrative hook, line, and sinker.
20/02: Uncollected Thoughts
Category: Thinking Out Loud
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
1. Am I wrong? Or is this over? For some reason, I have the strong sensation that the Clinton campaign finally died last night. The losing margins keep getting bigger and bigger, and her core supporters keep getting thinner and thinner. The polls in Texas are moving the wrong direction, and Obama seems bigger in Houston than Yao Ming. Are we done here?
The other side of the coin: we are all tired, emotional, and lacking good sense. Let' s see what the next two weeks bring.
2. Perhaps too late to help Hill, but the Obama scrutiny may be beginning. Last night CBS News led with Barack's phrase borrowing and, more importantly, Michelle's untoward remarks about America. More (much more) on that later. Prospective post title: uncovering a nation to be proud of in a sea of genocide, enslavement, and oppression. Michelle's telling admission will not play well in fly-over country where most of us love the good ole USA--no matter who we elect as president.
3. National Security (in addition to unconflicted patriotism) is the great unifier in the Republican Party. The world is a dangerous place. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq and begin a new era in which we earn the trust and acceptance of the world by loving them unconditionally.
I am reminded of an old riff from some long-forgotten minor league comedian:
I want to be around when the meek inherit the Earth. Because I am going to take it from them. "Give me the world, meek!" What are they going to do about it? They are meek.
My guess is that there are plenty of opportunistic malefactors out there waiting for us to go soft in the head. My prediction: the next hegemonic world power will not be nearly as generous or compassionate as the United States (regardless of what Michelle Obama might think).
The other side of the coin: we are all tired, emotional, and lacking good sense. Let' s see what the next two weeks bring.
2. Perhaps too late to help Hill, but the Obama scrutiny may be beginning. Last night CBS News led with Barack's phrase borrowing and, more importantly, Michelle's untoward remarks about America. More (much more) on that later. Prospective post title: uncovering a nation to be proud of in a sea of genocide, enslavement, and oppression. Michelle's telling admission will not play well in fly-over country where most of us love the good ole USA--no matter who we elect as president.
3. National Security (in addition to unconflicted patriotism) is the great unifier in the Republican Party. The world is a dangerous place. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq and begin a new era in which we earn the trust and acceptance of the world by loving them unconditionally.
I am reminded of an old riff from some long-forgotten minor league comedian:
I want to be around when the meek inherit the Earth. Because I am going to take it from them. "Give me the world, meek!" What are they going to do about it? They are meek.
My guess is that there are plenty of opportunistic malefactors out there waiting for us to go soft in the head. My prediction: the next hegemonic world power will not be nearly as generous or compassionate as the United States (regardless of what Michelle Obama might think).
19/02: KTSA Radio--San Antonio
FYI: I am scheduled to share briefly my thoughts on tonight's latest election developments and trends on air this evening for KTSA Radio (San Antonio). If you are interesed in listening, I am scheduled from 8:10 to 8:20 p.m. CST. For live streaming click here and then click the icon in the top-right corner.
A lot of hopeful speculation recently has the Clintons losing the nomination and splitting the party; that is, many conservative observers, supremely confident that they know what makes the Clinton's tick, have predicted a "scorched-earth policy," if Hillary loses.
Not likely.
These right-wing talkers are committing the same error they always make in dealing with the Clintons: they underestimate their talent and exaggerate their faults.
For example, think about the government shutdown of 1995. Intoxicated by our own propaganda, too many on our side assumed that "Slick Willie," the draft-dodger, would turn and run in the face of a firm conservative posture. This was a fundamental and colossal misunderstanding of the man from Hope (or Hot Springs or Harlem or wherever). And we paid the price for our arrogance. I trace the decline of Newt Gingrich in American politics to that misreading and over-confidence.
Now, based on the overly simplistic characteristic we feed to our less-intelligent allies, we are casting the Clintons as so egocentric and petty that they will bring the whole party crashing around their own personal defeat.
Two reasons why this is extremely unlikely:
1. There is not one scrap of historical evidence that points to that assumption. True the Clintons are incredibly ambitious (and petty at times), but they have never been "barn-burners"?
2. More importantly, what is in it for them, if they pursue a path of destruction? Out of one side of our mouth, we chastise Bill for being fantastically legacy-driven--and, out of the other, we assume that he will destroy himself historically by executing the most petulant political blunder of all time.
If Hillary loses the nomination, the Clintons will do as wise politicians have always done; they will support the nominee. Sometimes the support is heartfelt, and sometimes it is pro forma--but it has generally been there. I have serious doubts that the Clintons will break the pattern.
So, optimistic Republicans need to come up with another idea on which to hang their hopes.
Not likely.
These right-wing talkers are committing the same error they always make in dealing with the Clintons: they underestimate their talent and exaggerate their faults.
For example, think about the government shutdown of 1995. Intoxicated by our own propaganda, too many on our side assumed that "Slick Willie," the draft-dodger, would turn and run in the face of a firm conservative posture. This was a fundamental and colossal misunderstanding of the man from Hope (or Hot Springs or Harlem or wherever). And we paid the price for our arrogance. I trace the decline of Newt Gingrich in American politics to that misreading and over-confidence.
Now, based on the overly simplistic characteristic we feed to our less-intelligent allies, we are casting the Clintons as so egocentric and petty that they will bring the whole party crashing around their own personal defeat.
Two reasons why this is extremely unlikely:
1. There is not one scrap of historical evidence that points to that assumption. True the Clintons are incredibly ambitious (and petty at times), but they have never been "barn-burners"?
2. More importantly, what is in it for them, if they pursue a path of destruction? Out of one side of our mouth, we chastise Bill for being fantastically legacy-driven--and, out of the other, we assume that he will destroy himself historically by executing the most petulant political blunder of all time.
If Hillary loses the nomination, the Clintons will do as wise politicians have always done; they will support the nominee. Sometimes the support is heartfelt, and sometimes it is pro forma--but it has generally been there. I have serious doubts that the Clintons will break the pattern.
So, optimistic Republicans need to come up with another idea on which to hang their hopes.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Why do I subscribe to TIME and not Newsweek? It is a long story unworthy of telling--but, suffice it to say, it makes no sense.
The editorial team of Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham make Newsweek, while not perfect, the historian's news magazine of choice. If it is true that journalism is the first draft of history, I predict that the thoughtful and careful Thomas and Meacham manuscripts will require minimal revisions. Kudos to these fellows.
Thomas's latest article details the complicated relationship between the Clintons and the Beltway press corps. It is spot-on and well worth the read:
Poison Dynamic: The Clintons have long had a rocky relationship with the media
His thesis: the modern presidency and the modern press are irreconcilably antagonistic. Why does Hillary get the short end of the coverage during Campaign 2008? She is the object of residual antipathy from her previous days in the White House.
There have been plenty of ups and downs, but Thomas points to the irony that graying Bill Clinton is the old new kid in town and the vibrant Barack Obama is the new new kid in town.
Earlier this season I quoted All About Eve, when I cautioned: "buckle your seatbelts, we are in for a bumpy ride."
In re Bill Clinton, another Eve quote: "Nothing is forever in the Theatre. Whatever it is, it's here, it flares up, burns hot and then its gone."
One quibble: Thomas is loath to assert that the press coverage does have a bias toward liberal candidates (although I have heard him say as much in other venues). On this occasion, however, he seems unwilling to admit that a subsequent contest between two current media darlings, Obama and John McCain, will inevitably fall to the most stalwartly liberal of the two: Obama.
Read the Evan Thomas piece. Absolutely brilliant.
The editorial team of Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham make Newsweek, while not perfect, the historian's news magazine of choice. If it is true that journalism is the first draft of history, I predict that the thoughtful and careful Thomas and Meacham manuscripts will require minimal revisions. Kudos to these fellows.
Thomas's latest article details the complicated relationship between the Clintons and the Beltway press corps. It is spot-on and well worth the read:
Poison Dynamic: The Clintons have long had a rocky relationship with the media
His thesis: the modern presidency and the modern press are irreconcilably antagonistic. Why does Hillary get the short end of the coverage during Campaign 2008? She is the object of residual antipathy from her previous days in the White House.
There have been plenty of ups and downs, but Thomas points to the irony that graying Bill Clinton is the old new kid in town and the vibrant Barack Obama is the new new kid in town.
Earlier this season I quoted All About Eve, when I cautioned: "buckle your seatbelts, we are in for a bumpy ride."
In re Bill Clinton, another Eve quote: "Nothing is forever in the Theatre. Whatever it is, it's here, it flares up, burns hot and then its gone."
One quibble: Thomas is loath to assert that the press coverage does have a bias toward liberal candidates (although I have heard him say as much in other venues). On this occasion, however, he seems unwilling to admit that a subsequent contest between two current media darlings, Obama and John McCain, will inevitably fall to the most stalwartly liberal of the two: Obama.
Read the Evan Thomas piece. Absolutely brilliant.
Category: Campaign 2008.10
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Last week, Iowa State political science professor, Steffen Schmidt (aka "Dr. Politics"), lectured in Waco. During that visit and in subsequent conversations, Schmidt pointed out that the much-trumpeted Latino loyalty toward Clinton seems much more a function of familiarity (or lack of familiarity with Obama) rather than a deep-seated personal affinity for Hillary. Moreover, based on the most recent polling, Mrs. Clinton's two firewalls (Hispanics and white women) both seem to be crumbling.
Things are tough in Clinton-land at the moment.
Having said that, and keeping in mind the above analysis, here is the equation as I see it:
The nomination is coming down to the super delegates. If they voted today, they would vote for Obama because he seems unstoppable. The good news for Clinton: they are not voting today. She has time to punch a hole in his balloon.
How?
It will be very tough, but Clinton must sweep the upcoming final big three states (very difficult but not impossible). For all that has gone sour in her campaign, Hillary has consistently excelled in these upscale high-stakes contests. Then, most importantly, she must somehow break the "spell" of Obama by casting doubt on him in some way between now and the day of decision.
One promising development: Republicans are warming to the prospect of running against Obama. The smart guys are starting to see some very appealing flaws in his defenses. There are ways to hit him. The most liberal senator. "Cut and run" in a moment where it finally looks like we might get things turned around in Iraq. Al Sharpton. His Black Nationalist church. Some oldies but goodies: taxes, gun control, abortion, etc.
I have always seen Obama as a big gamble: he could prevail in a huge way ("painting the map blue" as he says). Or we could wake up from our trance midway through the coming fall election season and suddenly look at this guy and say: "what in the hell are we doing?"
An aside: An Election Day repudiation of Obama would be a national disaster. If this great hope for and emblem of reconciliation (racial and otherwise) gets that close and loses, the collective disillusionment will be colossal. As a people, we would be loath to deny this candidacy--but, on the other hand, shall we elect a president about whom we know almost nothing simply because we desire some sort of symbolic closure to our tortured racial history?
When not caught up in the fantasy, all of this gets fairly serious, precarious, and frightening.
Between now and this summer, I can certainly envision a moment in which strategically minded Democratic Party big-wigs entertain grave doubts about Obama's electability. In that scenario, three for the price of one (Obama as VP) may emerge as a much safer bet.
And, once again, I continue to wonder if Obama himself really believes in his heart of hearts that he is truly ready for this dance. He might find the second slot a welcome relief, finding a face-saving exit from a daunting task exacerbated by unreasonable expectations he has done so much to help create.
Things are tough in Clinton-land at the moment.
Having said that, and keeping in mind the above analysis, here is the equation as I see it:
The nomination is coming down to the super delegates. If they voted today, they would vote for Obama because he seems unstoppable. The good news for Clinton: they are not voting today. She has time to punch a hole in his balloon.
How?
It will be very tough, but Clinton must sweep the upcoming final big three states (very difficult but not impossible). For all that has gone sour in her campaign, Hillary has consistently excelled in these upscale high-stakes contests. Then, most importantly, she must somehow break the "spell" of Obama by casting doubt on him in some way between now and the day of decision.
One promising development: Republicans are warming to the prospect of running against Obama. The smart guys are starting to see some very appealing flaws in his defenses. There are ways to hit him. The most liberal senator. "Cut and run" in a moment where it finally looks like we might get things turned around in Iraq. Al Sharpton. His Black Nationalist church. Some oldies but goodies: taxes, gun control, abortion, etc.
I have always seen Obama as a big gamble: he could prevail in a huge way ("painting the map blue" as he says). Or we could wake up from our trance midway through the coming fall election season and suddenly look at this guy and say: "what in the hell are we doing?"
An aside: An Election Day repudiation of Obama would be a national disaster. If this great hope for and emblem of reconciliation (racial and otherwise) gets that close and loses, the collective disillusionment will be colossal. As a people, we would be loath to deny this candidacy--but, on the other hand, shall we elect a president about whom we know almost nothing simply because we desire some sort of symbolic closure to our tortured racial history?
When not caught up in the fantasy, all of this gets fairly serious, precarious, and frightening.
Between now and this summer, I can certainly envision a moment in which strategically minded Democratic Party big-wigs entertain grave doubts about Obama's electability. In that scenario, three for the price of one (Obama as VP) may emerge as a much safer bet.
And, once again, I continue to wonder if Obama himself really believes in his heart of hearts that he is truly ready for this dance. He might find the second slot a welcome relief, finding a face-saving exit from a daunting task exacerbated by unreasonable expectations he has done so much to help create.
