Mirrors

 

Scott Adams, in his daily podcasts, has pronounced himself puzzled by the apparent truth of an insight from Tucker Carlson: that whatever the left accuses the right of doing seems to be just what they have been doing themselves.

They accuse Trump’s followers of trying to stage an insurrection; they use this as an excuse to try to stage an insurrection. A second or third insurrection, following the Russia hoax and the Ukraine impeachment. They accuse Trump of encouraging rioting; after a year of encouraging rioting. They accuse Trump of authoritarianism, for considering calling in the National Guard to protect the White House under siege, or for considering calling in the Guard to cities torn by rioting. As soon as they are in power, they call in the National Guard to protect Washington, and keep them there. And plan to impose COVID regulations on the states. They accuse Trump of colluding with Russia; Hillary Clinton was colluding with Russia, Joe Biden was colluding with Russia, not to mention China and the Ukraine. They impeach Trump for supposedly, perhaps, interfering in Ukrainian legal affairs and demanding a quid pro quo for aid. Yet Biden is on video boasting about interfering in Ukrainian legal affairs and demanding a quid pro quo for aid. They have called Republicans Nazis and Fascists for years; that’s the entire “Antifa” thing. Then when Gina Carano tweets a comparison of the left to the early Nazis, this is intolerable. She must lose her livelihood for it. They declare the right “anti-Semitic” while being anti-Semitic. They accuse the right of being racist, while making everything about race. They actually declare not being racist, racist. They claim the Republicans are for the rich and against the poor, while openly expressing contempt for the poor.  It is only too obvious there is a pattern here.

The principle is simple, and known since ancient times. When someone commits consciously to evil, to something they know is wrong, the truth becomes their enemy. They feel the need to get as far away from truth as possible. They will come to consistently say the opposite of the truth, and accuse the innocent of their sins.

Thinking Way Too Far Ahead

 

Possible Republican contenders for presidency in 2024:

Donald Trump. The Republicans make a grave error if they turn away from Trump. If they do, his followers will stay home or form a new party. He is their best shot.

He may, on the other hand, not be up to it after four more years. If so, the ideal contender for the leadership of the Trump faction is Jared Kushner. His involvement in the Abrahamic Accords has demonstrated his ability; he would not just be a Trump surrogate or dynastic successor. And he comes with Ivanka.

There are other possible contenders for the Trump crown: Mike Pompeo, any of Trump’s children; but only one of this group can run. The advantage this faction has is that they will probably only run one of their number; the others will stand down, ensuring a strong showing in the early primaries. If any of them ran against the Trump-backed candidate on their own, they would lose all support for doing so.

If not Trump, there is a large constituency for another non-politician. Another populist candidate might convince people he could do a better job than Trump at draining the swamp, and that is the underlying source of Trump’s appeal. Politicians in general are in disrepute, and the just-concluded impeachment trial has accentuated this. 

This leaves a big opportunity for Tucker Carlson, who is sounding populist now; but I doubt he would want to give up his media position, which probably has more real power to change things. Or Kanye West, as another billionaire; but since he is reputedly crazy, and inexperienced in politics, he comes with a high risk of self-immolation. Other obvious billionaires lack Trumpiness—as Arnold Schwarzenegger discovered when he tried to replace the master on The Apprentice, or as Mike Bloomberg discovered in the Democratic primaries. Doing the in-command billionaire role is not that easy. Elon Musk might be able to do it, but Elon Musk has more important things to do with his genius. Candace Owens has hinted at interest in running; but I’m not sure she has the intellectual chops. I’ve seen her flat-footed in an interview. If it were my choice, I’d love to see Ben Shapiro.

Traditional and religious conservatives are another large constituency within the party. Trump and Trumpites are actually rather odd bedfellows for them. They ought by rights to coalesce around Mike Pence; but Pence may not be capable now of being a unifying figure within the party. He was unfairly blamed by Trump for accepting the Electoral College results, and if he has to run against Trump or a Trumpite in the primaries, this adversarial image will be reinforced.

Ted Cruz is another prominent possibility for the TRCs. He has kept on the good side of the Trump populists. The rap against him is that he is unlikeable. That stopped Bob Dole; it did not stop Richard Nixon. Other possibilities in this slot are Tom Cotton, Tim Scott, Josh Hawley. The problem here is that there are too many possible standard-bearers, and they are unlikely to step aside for one another. This may spread the TRC vote too thin in early primaries, and eliminate them all.

Then there is the libertarian wing of the party. They have an obvious leader in Rand Paul, who has also stayed on the good side of the Trump faction. Paul’s problem, to my mind, is that he sounds unpresidential, whiny. Cut out for opposition, not leadership. Someone has floated a unity ticket of Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard. Great idea, but probably not achievable, politics being the art of the possible,

Ron DeSantis as Governor of Florida is making waves these days. But sitting governors are sitting ducks; they have to govern, and bucks stop there when things go wrong. Andrew Cuomo has recently gone from Democrat star to Democrats demanding he resign. Kristi Noem has faded as COVID numbers have risen in her state. Chris Christie was supposed to be the odds-on favourite for the nomination in 2020--and then there was that bridge thing. Some governor may rise, but it is unpredictable four years in advance. 

Dan Crenshaw looks good, and charismatic. But he also seems too new and inexperienced.

What about the party stalwarts, the professionals, the guys who would have backed Jeb Bush last time? I think they have long had their eyes on Nikki Haley. I think Haley may have won their support, but killed her chances of becoming president, by coming out publicly against Trump recently. I don’t see the Republicans winning if they run against Trump instead of the Democrats.

My track record for predicting nominees has been awful. I called it for Jeb Bush last time, for Newt Gingrich the time before, for Rudy Giuliani the time before that. So don’t trust me on this. But I think the next Republican nominee will be Nigel Farage.

War Drums Along the Potomac

 

The revelations from Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell may not be enough to prompt the Supreme Court or Congress to overturn the election. But they are already enough to convince just about everyone on the right that the election results are not legitimate.

The great strength of democracy is that, having voted, everyone feels they have a stake in the government, and this prompts most of us to comply with the laws and the rules. This is suddenly no longer so in the USA.

We now have the worst possible scenario. If Biden is allowed to take office, the right will not accept it, Even commentators who scoffed at it until a few weeks ago, are now talking revolution, martial law, or civil war. If Trump is left in office, the left will erupt in new violence. And there will be demands from his supporters for a clampdown. These people, after all, have been shown now to be treasonous.

We have been dumb lucky so far that only the left has been trying to impose their will by violence. It is going to get far messier if now there are two sides.

The Southern Strategy

The “Southern Strategy” is generally held to be something Nixon did in US politics, to scoop up racist votes in the US South for the Republican party. Thus attributing racism to Republicans.

But it is hard to see this supposed racist “Southern strategy” in the actual electoral history of the South. In Nixon's first presidential win, in 1968, the South went for Wallace. Nixon was not competitive in the South. In his second, in 1972, he carried the South, but he also carried everything else except Massachusetts. No “Southern strategy” could have made much difference; he had that region in the bag. George McGovern had no more appeal in the South than elsewhere, without racism being a factor. And in the midterms in 1970—the Democrats won those midterms in the Southern races, and expanded their seat count If there was a Republican Southern strategy under Nixon, then it was a failure. The majority of Senate seats from the South stayed in Democratic hands into Clinton's presidency.

The Democrats, in the meantime, have pursued their own “Southern strategy” since well before the Civil War. When slavery was still a thing, they were the party of slavery. When racial segregation was still a thing, they were the party of racial segregation. This became by Al Smith's day an awkward coalition, of northern immigrants, Catholics, and leftists, with southern conservatives. The latter found common cause with the Northerners pretty much only on racial segregation, and it mattered so long as that was their key issue. The Republicans, founded on the abolition of slavery, just were not going to play ball on that one.

Racial segregation and this coalition was pretty much busted by Eisenhower, with his appointment of anti-segregation judges. Brown vs. Board of Education came on his watch. It was the first act of the “activist” Warren court, which pursued the theme through the Sixties. Earl Warren was Eisenhower's appointee. He seems to have been appointed for this purpose. Eisenhower's Justice Department filed in favour of the plaintiffs. As a general, Eisenhower had previously insisted on the racial integration of troops under his command.

Then it was Eisenhower who sent in the armed forces to enforce desegregation in Little Rock in 1957. The battle had been joined.

This forced a crisis for the Democrats. It exposed their fault lines. I guess the northern Democrats then faced a choice: stick with their southern wing, or take the same route. My guess is that popular opinion by this time made sticking with segregation politically untenable in the North, now that Eisenhower had made it an issue. Hold the south, and they lose the North to the Rockefeller and Lindsey and Percy Republicans. They chose to endorse desegregation in turn. But through the Sixties, there was still higher support proportionally for desegregation among Republicans than Democrats. Ed Brooke, Republican of Massachusetts, was for some time America's only black senator.

As of the mid Sixties, voting on race or segregation was not really possible any longer, since both parties had now aligned against segregation. So neither was running a “southern strategy” on this basis. But it was still the Democrats who stuck with a kind of southern strategy, trying to keep in the good books of the guys who used to vote segregationist. They kept running Southerners for president, hoping thereby to preserve their base: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore. Not surprising, and nothing sinister; it seemed that only when they did so could they win elections—right up to Barack Obama. I thought it was a poor political move to nominate Kerry; they were departing from their winning formula. But that race still had two prominent Southern candidates, John Edwards and Wesley Clark. And one was chosen as the VP candidate.

It is not clear to me whether, in the end, the South pulled away from the Democratic Party, or the Democratic Party, over time, pulled away from the South. Jim Webb, last time around, could not seem even to get a hearing. Dems started to mock Southerners openly.

In the meantime, the Republicans did not run any Southerners for president. George H.W. Bush briefly represented Texas in the house, but did anyone think of him as a Texan rather than a New Englander? The Republican southern breakthrough came only with his son George W. And since him, we've had McCain, a westerner, Romney from the northeast, with some midwestern and western roots, Trump from New York City.

Has there been any difference, since the Sixties, in the position of the two parties on segregation? The last hiccup of the issue that I remember was the school busing controversy in the Seventies. At the time, Jimmy Carter for the Dems stood out as suggesting he was in favour of de facto neighbourhood segregation; as he put it, on people preserving the “ethnic purity of their neighbourhoods.”

And that's the last I heard of any of it.

US Presidential Politics at the Moment

Current state of the GOP presidential race: each of the important factions of the Republican party seem to have settled on their favourite, but one. The Christian right wants Huckabee. The Tea Party, the populist wing, wants Ted Cruz. The libertarians want Rand Paul. This makes each of these three viable candidates, because each of these groups comes with volunteers and a ready-made campaign organization on the ground.

The “establishment,” the political pragmatists, however, have not settled on their candidate. They liked Chris Christie early on, but, as I predicted, there were skeletons. And, as I predicted, they are now looking closely at Jeb Bush as a substitute. If Bush in turn stumbles, Paul Ryan will be their guy.

So those three also have viable campaign prospects. The “establishment” support is generally twice as big as any other faction, so it can sustain two or more candidates for a time. Moreover, it is much more fickle than any other faction, due to its pragmatism, so it is worth it for possible mainstream candidates to hang in and hope for a frontrunner to stumble.

If I were placing bets, given the field as I see it today, I'd put my money on Jeb Bush as the most likely nominee. Rand Paul will probably surprise early, perhaps knocking Christie out of the race. The libertarians probably have the best organization on the ground. But foreign policy is an Achilles' Heel for them; I doubt they can get over the top.

This may well come just in time for North Carolina's, or Florida's, primary. Here Jeb Bush has a big advantage as a son of the South and as a Floridian. Bush's record is conservative enough that he should not fatally alienate the ideologues, at least not enough that they would comfortbly combine against him. He has the sense of gravitas needed to follow Obama's amateurish administration; people are likely to be hankering for that. Indeed, for maximum gravitas, imagine a ticket with Jeb Bush for President, Mitt Romney for VP. I think this would appeal to a lot of people who feel bad about not voting for Romney last time.

On the Democratic side, I still sense that Hillary Clinton's support is only inches deep. They want someone young and exciting to show up and make it a race; they just haven't found anyone yet. They will. Rahm Emanuel is one guy who might offer the desired excitement; he might inherit the Obama machine. He just needs an issue to latch onto.

Chicago on Fire

Good question.

The war against teachers’ unions has now spread to the streets of Chicago. Chicago teachers are on strike despite already getting the highest or second-highest remuneration package in the US, because the Chicago board is trying to shave back health benefits and impose some quality control.

One might ask, why is it the best-paid teachers in the US, and, in Ontario, the best-paid teachers in North America, who are so restive?

And the answer is simple: did you ever, as a child, read the story of The Princess and the Pea? (There is much wisdom in fairy tales. That is why they endure.) If one is oppressed, one quickly gets used to being oppressed—see the “Stockholm Syndrome.” If one is pampered, one gets used to being pampered, and quickly comes to consider it one’s right. The same principle of human nature explains feminism.

The oppressed masses?

Unfortunately, the Chicago School Board seems to be wrong on one of their proposed quality control measures. They want to tie teacher evaluations to student test scores. That seems like an obvious step. But the research suggests it is a very inaccurate measure, and there are better ones.

The simplest and most accurate one is just to allow parent choice.




Unfortunately, the teachers have left themselves open by decades of non-evaluations and phony evaluations.

One more notable thing about this strike is that, as in Ontario, the confrontation is between the teachers’ unions and a fairly left-leaning government. This was predicted here: since Chris Christie and then Scott Walker showed that facing down the teachers’ unions was a winning political issue, everyone else has been climbing onto the bandwagon. Even the political left, which for years has been almost an arm of the teachers’ unions, does not now dare to back them. Michelle Rhee is a Democrat.

This means the teachers are in a perilous position, and they don’t seem to realize it. They’ve lost their political cover. Blinded by that easy assumption of privilege again, which has been the downfall of every ruling class sooner or later. It is a very bad idea for them to go on strike against the public. Meanwhile, the private and charter schools continue to operate; making a very good advertisement for private and charter schools.

Ironically, the original sweatshops were sole-proprietor small businesses.

This is going to happen fast now (though any thinking person knows it should have happened at least thirty years ago). Teachers’ unions as we know them are finished. The public school system as we know it is doomed.

Rice for Vice Would be Nice

The fact that I personally have a massive crush on Condoleeza Rice has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Drudge Report is headlining a claimed leak that Condoleeza Rice has suddenly jumped to the top of the list for Romney's VP choice.

I've said here before that she'd be a perfect matchup with Romney. If he's smart, he'll go with her, instead of rumoured alternatives Portman and Pawlenty.

Rice balances Romney well because she adds foreign policy expertise, which Romney lacks. She also balances him South/North. Obviously, if it matters, she balances him male / female and white / black. She is seen as on the right of the party; he needs that too, for the base. I suspect she will help a lot of voters feel better about voting against the first black president; she insulates them, in their own minds and in the public eye, against accusations that they are voting against Obama because he is black. It would also be helpful in terms of the social consensus in this regard; it would prevent blacks from feeling they had been rejected in such a vote. That would make Romney's presidency easier if he won.

But the biggest reason is this: Romney has an enthusiasm problem. People find him boring. The worst thing he could do, therefore, is just what he has been rumoured to be planning to do: a "safe" choice for VP. A traditional sort, a man in a suit, a Pawlenty or Portman. He needs someone interesting, someone charismatic, someone who can draw the public interest. It is my sense that Rice has just that kind of charisma, and that kind of personal story.

Apparently, she can also deliver a fiery speech.

Give it to her: don't offer the American public four years of pure boredom.

Dark Horse Trot

Vote for me.

Last Republican primary season, in 2007-2008, it was apparent early that there was a big hole for a conservative to run through. Too many early leading candidates were moderates. Giuliani and McCain almost cancelled each other out; Romney was a moderate by record.

The right-wing run didn't quite happen. I still think it could have, had Fred Thompson shown a bit more interest. But the slipstream propelled him into the race when he had no intention originally to run—the polling numbers just looked too good. The vacuum on the right also catapulted dark horse Huckabee into the top tier, and convinced Romney to run, unconvincingly, to the right.

In the end, McCain pulled it out, but it was a very close-run thing.

This time, interestingly, it looks as though the field is similarly skewed the opposite way. Primary seasons are like wars—armies of operatives are always perfectly prepared to fight the last one. Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, Romney, the four big names most likely to start, are all running right. Nobody's talking to or about moderates, in this Tea Party atmosphere. That's exactly why, with these four big pulls fairly evenly splitting the rightward vote, a qualified moderate with name recognition—or even a dark horse with the time to work Iowa--would have a fine chance to get a good head wind in the early primaries.

In particular, if they both run, Palin and Huckabee are likely to cancel each other out just like McCain and Giuliani did in early going. They have a very similar appeal. Palin looks like she could pull away, but rumours are that a lot of party leaders are particularly unhappy about her. They might throw a lot of weight behind Huckabee to stop her.

Besides the fact that four strong candidates are all competing for the right-wing vote, all of them have some serious flaw that makes it difficult for them to get the entire right to unite behind them. Had Romney not pulled right last time, this could have been his year. But not now: he already looks like a careerist. He cannot flip now that he's flopped. Especially not with the Tea Party watching closely. At the same time, the real rightists are not going to settle for Romney when they have real right-wingers to choose from. Gingrich washes out with social conservatives because of his spotted personal life. But both Huckabee and Palin raise questions of underqualification and lack of gravitas.

Of the big four, I'd put my money on Huckabee for having the best shot. But it's high-risk. He stands a chance of being eliminated early by Palin before he gets to exploit his second-choice potential.

Against all this, a moderate could have a pretty clear run for a few primaries, while the right is beating up on itself. Remember too that whenever a moderate candidate emerges in the Republican races, the mainstream media lionize them, doing their best to get them some traction. So it was with John McCain in 2000; so it was with John Anderson in 1980; so it was with Giuliani in 2008.

A moderate would also, more or less by definition, have crossover appeal. This could matter more than usual this time out. If levels of dissatisfaction with Obama remain high, yet Obama as an incumbent president faces no primary challenge in the Democratic party, a lot of independents and Democrats—not necessarily even disaffected Democrats--will be tempted to vote in the Republican primaries, whenever crossover voting is allowed.

Giuliani? Colin Powell? Joseph Liebermann switching parties? Any of these might be able to pull it off. Any would also contrast well with Obama in terms of gravitas and experience. Giuliani and Powell do not seem to want it that much; they've more or less moved on from politics altogether. And it's a bit late for Liebermann to turn Republican in time to contend; not that there is any sign he'd do it. There are other names: Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels might credibly run as relative moderates.

Michael Bloomberg seems to be gearing up for an independent run. He could have had a far better shot of actually becoming president if he had stayed in the Republican party in 2008. His chance opens up if and only if the Republicans end up with a candidate well to the right. And even then, a third party has taken the Presidency more or less exactly never, since the days of Abraham Lincoln. All he is likely to do is to split the non-Tea Party vote enough to help the eventual Republican nominee get in, even if he or she is well to the right.

Okay, here's my prediction: look for an early surprise in the Republican primary season, an unexpectedly strong showing from a relative moderate who is still a dark horse, still not being talked about as a contender. Whoever it is will either win or place at the convention.

Your GOP Ticket Forms

I watch this today, and a few things occur to me:

1. Chris Christie is indeed planning to run for President.

2. He would be a formidable candidate and probably a formidable president. He knows how to communicate.

3. Public school teachers are doomed. Even if Christie does not win, he's painted a big bright fluorescent target on their back as a winning populist issue.

Personally, right now, I think if Christie runs, he's the best option the Republicans have. I think he would run extremely well against Obama. His obvious off-the-cuff ease would make Obama look like a stuffed dummy.

I can even imagine a "Chris and Mike Show," with Huckabee in the number two slot. They'd be awesome. Two funny fat guys; balance north and south, but in other ways rather similar personalities. And both enjoyable to listen to.

Slow Train Coming

My friend the left-wing columnist is stumped, he admits, by the recent US midterm elections. He attributes them to “unfocussed anger” from older people in the US upset over America's supposedly declining power in the world.

No kidding.

This is pretty dramatic evidence that there are two distinct cultures in contemporary North America, and at least one of them is completely ignoring the other.

In fact, my friend's reaction in and by itself seems to dramatically prove the validity of the concerns of the Tea Party.

Unfocussed anger? These elections had a laser focus like nothing I had seen in my lifetime. Not only were the issues laser-clear since early summer, but this election was almost perfectly predicted in the polls. In two sentences, here's the message:

1. Stop spending money, and
2. You're not listening and you don't care.

This is so obvious it is in the name of the “Tea Party” movement. Moreover, a nearly spontaneous mass movement like the TP appears to be has to coalesce around something that is pretty obvious to a vast mass of people, or else it is not going to happen. How is it then that, even if left-wingers do not agree with this perception, they cannot even be aware of other people having it? Obviously, they are not in fact listening, and they don't care. That is, they are not listening to anyone outside their own little clique, and they don't care what anyone else thinks if they are outside this clique. They are, in other words, a self-interested ruling class.

Some time last year, MSNBC featured a panel of economic experts loudly disagreeing online; as one often also sees on Fox News.

This, indeed, is the Fox News trademark; it is why they can call themselves “fair and balanced” and why the average person agrees with them. Yes, their commentators are all or almost all conservative-leaning; but that is not relevant. What matters is that they consistently have spokespeople on for both sides of any issue; so that people can feel pretty confident they are hearing all sides of the issue, from the horse's mouth, and any commentary is clearly labelled as such.

Besides getting both sides, and being respected for thinking for themselves [“We report; you decide.”], people love the excitement of hearing such arguments. MSNBC, more recently, has carved a niche for themselves by imitating the Fox format, but featuring star commentators resolutely on the left.

It is striking, and pathological, that the “legacy media,” print or broadcast, rarely does this. If and when they host what they purport to be two sides of an issue, it is usually faked, and this is visible from the plain fact that the two commentators usually agree on most things in their discussion. The permitted grounds for debate have been severely limited before the debate itself can begin. This is a visible attempt to limit public discourse, and it speaks directly to what the Tea Party and the midterm elections were all about.

To get back to MSNBC: one of the speakers, Rick Santelli, during a heated exchange when everyone was offering different opinions on the best economic path to follow, just threw up his hands and started repeating loudly and clearly, “STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING! STOP SPENDING!” Then he walked off camera.

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_7PwbxcDbs

It was a marvellously clarifying moment; it was the Tea Party in one simple sound bite; and so dramatic it was rerun many times, and garnered close to 200,000 hits on YouTube. I've heard the slogan repeated as a catch phrase a lot of times since, in what I think it a deliberate allusion: “Just stop spending.”

Few political messages in history have ever been clearer. Yet, even though it was on MCNBC, their own house channel, the left, and my friend, missed it altogether.

We are in a worldwide recession.

It is the worst since the Great Depression.

The average person is hurting.

A lot of people have lost a lot of money through over-borrowing; that's what happened in the housing bubble.

What do we all do when times get tough? What _must_ we all do? Basic, kitchen-table economics: we cut back our spending.

Yet everyone has recently been watching the US government increase spending and borrowing to unprecedented levels.

Americans know they or their children will be left with the bill.

What about this is hard to understand?

Here's another good video on the issue, as it affects Britain—where the new government has been behaving far more responsibly than the Democrats in Washington.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gd6-zfeeaM

Granted that the left or Obama or the Democrats may subscribe to Keynesian economics. Keynes may even be right, or partly right—though most economists these days seem to believe he was wrong. Even so, why on earth would the left or Obama or the legacy media think they could go extravagantly against common sense without bothering to present their argument clearly and humbly to the general public every step of the way? This speaks to being out of touch. This speaks to a sense of privilege, of a right to rule.

The second, broader, issue of being out of touch was crystallized recently by an essayist in the American Spectator:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

It was picked up and pushed hard by Rush Limbaugh on talk radio; it was rushed into book form over the summer.

I think Codevilla's argument is actually a bit less than coherent; but it picked up on and laid out a growing sentiment in the US public, the same sentiment that generated the Tea Party movement.

The idea is strong and growing, in the US and across the developed world, thanks to the Internet busting what had been an information cartel, that the world is being run by a ruling class that looks out for its own interests, not the interests of the world or the general public, and deliberately limits access to information in order to sustain its power. One important result is that government is not truly representative. Hence the “Tea Party” reference: it's about taxation without representation.

This ruling class, however, seems to me to have sealed their own doom, through a spectacular complacency. The newspapering business is classic: it is not really that traditional newspapers are doomed by the technology. The technology ought to expand the market and boost the business, because it makes the product cheaper. The problem, rather, is that no one wants the product; and they now have alternatives. By contrast, new technology has done nothing to slow down talk radio—a positively antique medium--or Fox News. Instead, news organization after news organization is sinking into insolvency because of complacency and a sense of privilege which prevents them from stooping to see or react to the world as it really is; or indeed stooping to interest themselves in the wishes or needs of their audience.

In systematically choking the flow of information for their class benefit, they have, inevitably, as ruling classes usually end up doing, starved their own members of the very information needed for their survival.

As a result, instead of trying in any way to counter the obvious popular concerns that appeared over the past year or two, the Democrats and the “legacy press” seemed to do, and still seem to do, their darndest to reinforce the impression that they are out of touch and do not care. It was all amazing to watch: like someone standing on a track with a milk train bearing down on him, and no sign of awareness visible on his face at all. It seemed the dramatic final proof that the elite were not in synch with the rest of us, and indeed that they were not competent. Everybody else saw it coming a mile off down the prairie.

Now, even after the election, we are all seeing columns from the left still wondering what happened and positing arcane theories. Frankly, most of them boil down more or less to stating publicly that the average voter is stupid and not competent to govern his own affairs. This is the tone of a ruling class, not used to communicating with the public, and not interested in doing so.

It is all like the apocryphal comment attributed to Marie Antoinette--”Let them eat cake.”

This is an over-generalization, but, on the whole, the Republicans in the US have tended to be the party of the individual, and to have appealed to voters as individuals. The Democrats have tended to be the party of groups and group rights, and to have appealed to voters as members of some special interest group—blacks, women, Catholics, Southerners, the elderly, Hispanics, teachers, unions, auto workers, gays, and so forth.

With the growth of the Internet and the information explosion it has made possible, it is no longer nearly as viable to appeal to voters as members of special interest groups. It is no longer nearly as possible to speak only to their supposed “leaders,” themselves members of your own ruling class, and expect the average member of the group to tug his forelock and vote the party line. People are more able now to look into each issue for themselves and form their own opinion.

And, having the clear impression now from what new information they have seen on the Web that they have been systematically lied to by their leaders in the past, they are very much inclined to do so.

As a result, overall, the Republican Party's approach begins to work better than the Democratic Party's approach. I expect this advantage to grow. The Democrats will have to reinvent themselves as something else to survive. The Republicans, on the other hand, may be supplanted by the Tea Party.

The same dynamic seems to be at work in Canada and Europe. There are exceptions, of course, but traditional voting blocs and deference to traditional authorities are fading.

I see it as a new chapter in human freedom and a further advancement in the democratic ideal, at least on a par with the Renaissance.

The Catholic Vote

Apparently, there has been a steady swing of Catholic voters from the Democratic to the Republican Party over the past few US elections:

2006 - 42% Republican
2008 - 44% Republican
2010 - 54% Republican

Catholics are not much heeded as a voting block, but they are a huge one, and this swing is historic. Not long ago, it was instinctive to pull the level for the straight Democratic ticket if you were Catholic.

The same thing is happening in Canada: used to be automatic to vote Liberal if you were Catholic; now the Conservatives are increasingly the Catholic party.

Meg Whitman is Still a Whore

You know what I love about this poll? Jerry Brown's support started to surge at just about exactly the point that he called Meg Whitman a whore, October 8.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/governor/ca/california_governor_whitman_vs_brown-1113.html

Sounds like we don't get fooled again.

Seems Like a Good Idea...

http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/draft-christie-movement-kicks

Meg Whitman is a Whore

X marks the spot, California!

Okay, Jerry Brown would have my vote.

There is a current uproar over an open telephone catching Brown or a Brown aide calling Meg Whitman, his Republican opponent, a “whore,” for cutting a secret deal to protect police pensions in exchange for the police union's endorsement.

Of course, the Whitman campaign is making a big deal of the slur: "The use of the term 'whore' is an insult to both Meg Whitman and to the women of California. This is an appalling and unforgivable smear against Meg Whitman. At the very least Mr. Brown tacitly approved this despicable slur and he himself may have used the term at least once on this recording."

Blah blah, woof woof, as Jimi Hendrix used to say. I could have predicted that response pretty much to the letter. Its political boilerplate, that gets rolled out sooner or later by every female candidate in every election. It would be fun to go back and find almost identical accusations by Hillary Clinton's campaign, or Sheila Copps's campaign, or Belinda Stronach's campaign, or any one of a hundred others. It ought to be read as such—as utterly insincere and manipulative, underlining the insincerity of the deal with the police union, and reinforcing the truth that Meg Whitman represents politics as usual. It's total insincerity tends to reinforce the problem with Meg Whitman that the tape also reveals, and it would sure scare me away from ever, ever voting for her.

Jerry Brown has always been something different. Love him or hate him, he has never been a politician like the others. He's been around forever, but the truth is, he was one of the first prominent people in modern American public life who actually began to speak out against, and do something against, big government. People tend to forget, but the so-called “neo-conservative” movement actually began in the Democratic Party, and Brown was one of the early leaders. For that, he deserves some respect and some consideration from those of us who are worried now about governments being out of control.

On this specific issue, again, he is on the side of the angels. And nothing could matter more. California is bankrupt. The main reason it is bankrupt is rich civil service pensions, which currently represent, nation-wide, in America, a trillion unfunded dollars, and a grand total of three trillion going from public into private pockets. This is, among other things, and to speak in precise terms, a vast transfer of wealth from the working and the poor to an idle ruling class. It is also pretty well impossible to imagine any way the governments can actually cover the sum, with or without bankrupting the economy.

The problem has been created because civil service unions cannot lose: they are not limited, as other unions are, by the need to keep their employing company profitable or ultimately lose their jobs. So even the sky is no limit.

For those sitting across the table, too, greasing up the pension fund is always a good way to buy labour peace. Yes, the sums are insupportable, but it does not matter—that will be left to future governments, and future incumbents, to sort out. No taxes need be raised today, to cover sums that will come due only some time in the future.

Unfortunately, thanks to demographics, the sums are starting now to come due.

Chris Christie, in New Jersey, is wisely tackling the problem head-on, taking on the teachers' unions. There is no other way. Jerry Brown, to his credit, is proposing to do the same thing. Meg Whitman, the phone call reveals, by contrast, is not only selling out California's and America's interests in order to get herself elected. She is also directly betraying those who would be voting for her as the supposed “conservative” candidate. Neat bit of triangulation, fortunately exposed by this taped phone call, that her own people are stupid and arrogant enough to be publicizing.

This is a perfect example of exactly why there needs to be a Tea Party movement, over and above the two-party structure. All who believe in the Tea Party concept should now mobilize with all their might to elect Jerry Brown.

Why? Because Meg Whitman is a whore.

And wait, there's more.

Anyone who believes in the fundamental principle of human equality—and there is nothing more fundamental in civic life--that all men are created equal, is honour-bound now to support Brown. Because Whitman, in her response to the Brown tape, has played the gender card, and made the issue “vote for me, because I am a woman.” She has made the issue “the honour of the women of California.”

As a practical matter, it is perfectly acceptable to use any conceivable insult against a man or a male candidate—you can even buy the t-shirt at any corner store. Heck, George Bush was an idiot, they say, albeit also clever as the devil himself. But say a word against a female candidate, or a pejorative that can refer to women but not men, and you have offended “the women of California.” This is not permissible, and must be voted down. It must be voted down, so that no future politician can hope to disguise their malfeasance and short-circuit the public debate by appealing to any similar prejudice.

Jerry Brown. It has to be Jerry Brown.

Early Odds

I tease my wife about being addicted to basketball and the LA Lakers. But I am just as addicted to US politics. What am I doing surveying the 2012 presidential field this early, when anything could still happen, and I don't even have a vote?

Junkie.

To run against Obama in a couple of years, the Republicans should choose a candidate who speaks directly to Barack Obama’s weaknesses, and to the current anti-incumbent mood. So, paradoxically, the ideal candidate is someone who exudes competence and experience, but is also a fresh face. Obama’s most vulnerable point is his apparent amateurishness; but, on the other hand, there is a general plague-on-both-their-houses anti-incumbent mood. See, most obviously, the Tea Party movement.

A tough bill of lading to fill.

Sarah Palin is not the one to run this time: she has previously prompted questions of competence and experience, and she is also suffering from overexposure.

Newt Gingrich is better—competent, and at least out of Washington for a while. He also has a bit of a populist aura from ‘92.

Mitt Romney is a bit too old-money and old-power to carry the Tea Party banner. He’d be good, but not the best.

Mike Huckabee’s current Fox stint ensures he is no longer a fresh face. Nor does he radiate the gravitas the time calls for.

Rudy Giuliani radiates competence. He’d be a powerful nominee, if he could ever get the Republican nomination. But that seems unlikely. If it didn’t work for him in 2008, I fear it’s not going to work better four years later, as the memories of 9/11 further fade.

I think, on the whole, the time and the mood calls for someone who has not run before.

General David Petraeus obviously comes to mind. He looks likely to be still tied up with his new Afghanistan gig; but you never know. Imagine if he pulls off something really impressive there, then steps down in summer 2011?

Chris Christie, brand new governor of New Jersey, is a fresh face, still, and is showing himself to be a truly inspiring speaker. That’s promising for a populist appeal.

There are rumblings that Jeb Bush might consider a run. He does indeed project competence, partly thanks to his family connections; he has been out of the public eye for a while, and there may well be significant built-up nostalgia for George W. Bush by the time the campaign heats up. Properly, he is too well-connected to head the Tea Party cause; but coming from the South helps there. Coming from Florida also helps with the primary process: a big one, early.

Okay, truth: if I had my druthers, right now, it'd be Jeb Bush. With Petraeus for VP.

We Have Met the Enemy ...

The world is full of Pharisees, phonies, mountebanks, and charlatans. We knew that, right? It's too obvious. A writerly friend loves to quote the adage “95% of everything is bunk.” This much is old to anyone who has read the New Testament.

But here’s a recent thought that's new at least to me: it’s not just the fault of the Pharisees. All of us are egging them on.

This revelation came to me while watching one of CNN’s house ads in a hotel room in Abu Dhabi. It was describing all the fascinating, controversial, interesting people you would encounter on one of their programs. “Mavericks!” the voice-over rang out breathlessly, as a photo of Al Gore appeared on the screen.

Al Gore!?!? A former Vice President of the US? When has he ever bucked a trend, as opposed to settling in for the ride? Whose opinions on anything have been more utterly predictable? Who on earth can be left to represent the political establishment?

It’s not as if the current US political street doesn't offer more obvious candidates to illustrate the term: Joe Liebermann, Arlen Specter, John McCain, Ralph Nader, Jesse Ventura, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan … Assuming the people who run CNN have a minimal knowledge of their own business, how do they come up with such a non sequitor?

Because, is seems to me, most people prefer a lie to the truth. It is Pharisaism with which they feel most comfortable—just like the mob that cried out “Give us Barrabbus.” It was safer in their minds, and it is safer in ours, to free a known murderer than a genuinely honest man. Without this sentiment from the mob, the Pharisees wouldn't last a day.

Jesus was a maverick, if anyone was. The very concept of a maverick, someone who thinks for himself instead of following the established consensual line, is necessarily frightening to anyone invested in a lie. As just about all of us are, in one way or another: the lie that we deserve all the money we have, say, or that we are really much smarter than everyone else, or that we will never actually die, or ...

Any real maverick threatens this. It seems wisest, therefore, to co-opt the term; ideally, to co-opt it for its opposite. Lies persisted in breed bigger and more terrible lies, to protect themselves, hiding the truth everywhere behind double-switchbacks. If you cannot damn “mavericks” as such, damn them instead for being “conformists.”

I’ve seen this double-lie happen politically many times in my 56-odd (very odd) years. When some golf club a few years ago would not admit Tiger Woods to play in a tourney, another friend of mine, the oft-mentioned left-wing columnist, lamented this example of “systemic discrimination.”

It was, of course, the opposite of “systemic discrimination”: currently, the “system” discriminates aggressively in favour of African Americans. It was an incidence of personal prejudice, shared by a small group of individuals in defiance of the system. But “systemic discrimination” is a comfortable lie, because it absolves all of us, as individuals, of any present or past guilt. The devil made us do it, so to speak.

If, on the other hand, real “systemic discrimination” came up and bit us on the nose—why, that wouldn't be discrimination at all. For admitting it was would be bucking the system, questioning the shared consensus, and where would we be then? Obliged, sadly, to confront truths bare. Consider “feminism”--really the systemic discrimination against men. Compare, after all, the historic fate of women with that of American blacks—a group truly and obviously discriminated against. Blacks had to give up their seats on the bus; women were the first ones seated. Blacks were served last at restaurants; women always went first. Blacks were obliged to work at hard, manual labour until they dropped in the open field. Women were excused from any manual labour as soon as their family circumstances or society's circumstances permitted it. And so on and on: the term “discrimination” has been co-opted to describe the opposite, and to justify and add to the special privileges privileged members of society already have. The rich get richer, and the poor get further stigmatized, so we needn't feel guilty about it.

Skillful Pharisees are merely able to exploit this bottomless public appetite for being deceived. David Suzuki springs to mind: when environmentalism gained enough steam to look mainstream, he, already entirely an establishment figure, was able to rush to the front of that parade and claim leadership. People embraced him, over the real founders of the movement, because Suzuki, being establishment, could be trusted not to really rock the boat in the end. He could rail and shake his tiny fists; everyone knew he was fully invested in the status quo, and would never do anything that might actually rattle our morning teacups. So everyone now could pretend to be an “environmentalist,” blame the poor, outlaw the real environmentalists, do something symbolic, and carry on as before.

So again, when some politician suddenly changes his or her stripes, in blatant response to an opinion poll or the sentiment of some new electorate, we almost always happily go along with the sham. We act entirely as though we still consider their newfound political views principled, though all of us must know they are not; it's very much like the “willing suspension of disbelief” needed to appreciate a good novel. We all now accept that Mitt Romney is a conservative, for example. Far from being troubled, we feel we can now trust him, because he has made public his final Pharisaism. No danger here from Mormon principle: we can trust him, like the rest of us, to predictably behave in his own self-interest, instead of inconveniently seeking truth, justice, or any nonsense of that sort.

This craving for charlatans over the genuine article makes the world go round. We always want a charming rascal, not an honest man, in the van.

It is the source, I suppose, of such cryptic sayings as “The devil is the god of this world,” or “the devil is a gentleman.” The entire social sphere is corrupted, fallen, from this tendency, so much so that it constantly breeds wild conspiracy theories. Everybody knows there is a vast selfish conspiracy in control of the world, deliberately manipulating it; and they are right.

What they fail to realize is that we ourselves are the conspirators.

On Magic Negroes

If you can get past the cussing, here's a really fine piece of writing. Best thing yet on the "Obama the Magic Negro" controversy.

The Burning Times

Cinders are falling everywhere. We are at a time of massive change, in North American society.

What if Obama is implicated in the current Illinois scandals?

True, there is no evidence of this yet; but the flames are lapping closer now than they were a day or two ago. It looks like Rahm Emanuel has some involvement. And, frankly, I personally became suspicious when Obama went on record saying he had had no contact at all with Blagojevich about the appointment of his successor to the Senate. Surely he had; and why wouldn't he? Why lie? It is as Shakespeare had it: “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

It's going to be messy for the US if this is so. No honeymoon, and already the handicap of inexperience. Will he be able to govern effectively? With a Democratic majority in Congress, will there be any hope of removing him by impeachment? Not for two years, at least. While the US economy is already in a tailspin; and, as Joe Biden himself pointed out, America's enemies will be waiting to test the new, unknown leader.


Things are scarcely less lively back in Canada. Stephane Dion went in one week from prime-minister-in-waiting to private member. He is an honourable man, has served Canada well with his Clarity Act, and deserves a better legacy. I hope one day he is appointed to the Senate, where we could benefit from his constitutional insights.

I doubt Michael Ignatieff will do any better for the Liberals. Polls already show that the coalition plan hurt the Liberal brand terribly. It made them look like an elite out only for themselves, feeling entitled to power in disregard of the popular vote or even the interests of the country. This is a view of the Liberal Party many have already been nursing for years; so it strikes home. Dumping Dion and appointing Ignatieff without a full leadership vote now only underlines that perception. It will be even worse if Ignatieff, as a leader unelected even by his own party, goes on to assume prime ministership under the coalition agreement. And, with or without the coalition, as an academic, a Harvard prof, an expatriate, and a genuine blue-blooded noble, he is highly vulnerable personally to the charge of being elitist and out of touch.

In any case, the whole ad hoc nature of the past two weeks has made the Liberals look pretty amaterish. It hasn't helped the Conservatives or the NDP either, but the Liberals look worst, and stand to suffer worst, as the traditional party of the Canadian establishment.

These are bad times to be part of either the Canadian or the American establishment.

The Right Stuff

Events are against him: the economic trouble, his own inexperience. He may have come to power too soon. But to be honest, Barack Obama has in him what makes a great president.

He is a great communicator. A great speaker, and, if he indeed wrote his own books, a great writer.

Many different types of people become president, but surely the most successful presidents have been those who shared this talent. Without it, being president hardly matters. Only with it can one really make a difference.

Reagan, of course, with his experience as an actor and, before and after it, as a journalist, was known as “The Great Communicator.” This also made him “the Teflon President.” FDR, with his fireside chats, was another. So was Lincoln—witness the Gettysburg Address.

In Canada, Ralph Klein is a classic example. He was virtually invicible politically, thanks to his journalistic talents. So was Rene Levesque, another former journalist. In Britain, both Disraeli and Churchill were also trained communicators, distinguished authors apart from politics.

That is what it takes.

McCain was a fine candidate, but he arguably lost to Obama in the end because he did less well at communicating a vision, a theme, to Americans. Obama had “Real Change.” McCain had “end pork barrel spending”; or, more charitably, “Country First.” It sounds worthy, but it doesn't have the same ring, invoke the same images of a better future, as, say, “The Square Deal,” “The New Frontier,” or “Compassionate Conservatism.” McCain was a great communicator in town hall meetings or at the back of the bus, but not directly to the general public: not on TV or in set speeches. He inspired by his deeds, but not his words.

So who on the right has the right stuff for 2012?

Fred Thompson is talented. When he's on his game, he rolls like thunder. But he apparently, to his credit, lacks the desire. And he will be a bit old to be a candidate by 2012—though not as old as McCain today. He spends too much time clearing his throat.

And there's Mike Huckabee. Preaching also teaches one to communicate, and certainly to inspire. Obama's own rhetoric owes a lot to a pracher's cadences. William Jennings Bryan, Tommy Douglas, Martin Luther King, Bible Bill Aberhart, and many more rose to political prominence from this training. Now Huckabee is also learning the ropes as a TV journalist. He should be in devastating form by the time 2012 rolls around. There is one concern, however: the preacherly tone seems to lead more often to prominence in opposition than to power. We honour prophets; but the role of prophet is very different from, and generally runs in counterpoint, to that of king.

Who's left? Surprise—Sarah Palin. It seems to have escaped general notice that her academic training is in journalism. She was a TV reporter before she went into politics. That's why she knows how to project through that screen. Give her a few more years of executive experience, and she may be not just political dynamite, as she is now, but a political hydrogen bomb.