Category: Politics

Enron’s boy at the New York Times, Paul Krugman, is upset at conservatives again (so, what else is new?) The issue: some of the children of prominent conservatives have jobs in government or media. For shame.

Just ask the Bush brothers. Talk to Elizabeth Cheney, who holds a specially created State Department job, or her husband, chief counsel of the Office of Management and Budget. Interview Eugene Scalia, the top lawyer at the Labor Department, and Janet Rehnquist, inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services. And don’t forget to check in with William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and the conservative commentator John Podhoretz.

Krugman has a real good point, but he’s only uncovered the tip of the iceberg. What about Barry Bonds? His father Bobby was a major leaguer, and incoming Giants manager Felipe Alou once played in the bigs with two brothers, Matty and Jesus. J. T. Snow’s daddy Jack played pro football with the Rams, and that reprobate David Bell is a third generation big leaguer, scion of Buddy and Gus. Some dude in the last Winter Olympics is a third generation Olympian, and the US Curling team is lousy with nepotism.

Even Hollywood, where everyone is virtuous, holy, and shrill is riddled with nepotism: look at Kate Hudson, Liv Tyler, Melanie Griffin, the Bridges boys, Laura Dern, Gwyneth Paltrow, Michael Douglas and all of those Baldwins, not to mention the sons of President Bartlett.

In auto racing, all it takes to be a winner is a name like Petty, Earnhardt, or Andretti, and you’re in. Business leader Bill Gates comes from the most prominent business lawyer on the West Coast, and Esther Dyson’s dad was a great physics guy.

And don’t even get me started on horse racing.

Yes, Krugman is onto something, and it’s big – talent may very well not be a social construct, and the revelation of that fact could be the downfall of the whole postmodern enterprise. We better nip this in the bud, or no telling what might happen. We might even elect leaders who exercise America’s global power responsibly instead of chasing interns, or even worse, refuse to bomb aspirin factories in third world countries.

This alert via Mr. Sullivan, who also links a great piece about Eminem and Al Gore.

Not to be outdone on the irresponsible Libertarian voting scandal, Radley Balko’s Cato colleague Randy Barnett blames it on Republicans:

What conservative Republicans often fail to realize is that libertarians are an important constituency that should not be ignored or taken for granted lest their votes be driven to the Libertarian party or even to the Democrats. Telling libertarians they should vote Republican despite their serious reservations about Republican policies is futile. These concerns need to be addressed rather than ignored.

Professor Barnett offers a laundry list of policies to make the Republican Party more Libber-friendly, such as getting jiggy about privacy, pushing Federalism, appointing more Clarence Thomases, legalizing crack, caring about the free market, and refraining from rude comments about the apparently very sensitive Libbers.

In brief, Barnett says that the Republican Party has to adopt the entire Libertarian Party platform lock, stock, and barrel, and then maybe Libbers will vote Reep.

While a deal like that is hard to refuse, I think most Reeps will take a pass on it. The Thomas nomination politicized judicial confirmation to an extent never seen before, and single-handedly created a logjam in the federal courts. We don’t need any more of that, as a party or as a nation. Similarly, rewriting the Patriot Act to accommodate privacy concerns would likely make it completely ineffective, because these concerns are endless and can never be satisfied, and as attractive as crack, smack, and speed may be, legalization (at either the state or the federal level) isn’t the next step. Decriminalizing personal use of pot even looks far out now that states are voting down medical use.

The party platform is decided by the party convention, and the candidates are chosen in the primary. If the Libbers want a voice on these things, they are going to have to participate in the party process instead of playing toy soldiers on their own little island. But they won’t, of course: compromise isn’t in their nature, as Barnett’s laundry list amply demonstrates.

The one issue that I would take from his list and try to advance is Federalism, simply because it’s the right thing to do, but I doubt most Libbers actually understand it, or that they’d be satisfied with it.

I’ve learned from arguing with Libbers the last few days that their voting patterns aren’t a reasoned political choice as much as they’re an assertion of individual identity – a way of saying they’re too pure for the process, too individualistic for the conformist major parties, and too special to care who wins. Given that mindset, appeasing them is about as likely to be successful as appeasing, well, Saddam Hussein. So it’s wise to forget them and fight for the swing voters who can actually be convinced on a rational self-interest basis to do the right thing.

Christopher Hitchens will be in Berkeley tonight.

Ben Domenech points out that Libertarian Party faithful are white with rage over an Op-Ed in the New York Times demonstrating their counter-productive effects:

The folks in Oklahoma will have a Democrat governor for the next four years, however — and I’d personally like to know if Radley would’ve voted for Largent, or the Independent. Those national softwood lumber policy arguments don’t work in the OK election, and it’s clear the Indie vote made the difference there (he got 14% of the total after running ad after ad against Largent). Would Radley have broken off from the anti-tax pro-gun arch-conservative Largent because he’s a pro-life social conservative, as well?

The money graf from the Op-Ed (by John Miller):

Yet Libertarians are now serving, in effect, as Democratic Party operatives. The next time they wonder why the Bush tax cuts aren’t permanent, why Social Security isn’t personalized and why there aren’t more school-choice pilot programs for low-income kids, all they have to do is look in the mirror.

Radley joins Professor Reynolds, Robert Prather, and Clayton Cramer in attempting to dodge Miller’s empirical evidence by throwing up emotionally-charged anecdotes. I thought Cramer was smarter than that.

The arithmetic of third parties is inescapable as long as we don’t have a runoff system. Smart enough people who have views outside the two-party mainstream have recognized this, and formed a Liberty Caucus in the Republican Party to advocate for Libertarian ideas, and a Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party to lobby for Green ideas. It’s especially odd, with not-too-bright Greens like Ronnie Dugger telling his buds to forget about Nader and vote Dem in ’04 (“Ralph, Don’t Run“) that the supposedly intelligent Libertarians are still throwing temper tantrums (as more than one of the comments on Radley’s site says) over the laws of arithmetic.

See this post for my take on the Libertarian Party’s electoral effects this year.

Nancy Pelosi’s victory over Harold Ford for Minority Leader (it’s official now) is interesting from the standpoint of identity politics, the chief motivator of the Democratic Party in recent years. Pelosi represents a demographic that Democrats desperately need to take back if they’re to be successful as a national party: white women. Clinton won with overwhelming white woman support (48-41 over Dole), but this evaporated in 2000, when they went for Bush, 49-48. But there’s a real question as to whether Pelosi has what it takes to appeal to white women outside the liberal enclave. If her main issues are going to be abortion, welfare, affirmative action, opposition to the war with Iraq, and high taxes, she loses, because white women are aligned with white men on these issues. If she stresses the economy (and has a real plan to improve it), the environment, education, and child care, she has a chance to win.

Meanwhile, African-Americans are going to be more and more disenchanted with a Democratic Party that takes them for granted, which depresses their turnout, and Latinos will be up in the air, probably representing the most important voting bloc in the near future. Bush has demonstrated an ability to reach out to Latinos, with friendly attitudes toward bi-lingual education, immigration, and religion, while all the Democrats have to offer is welfare and affirmative action, issues that alienate white people, including women.

Identity politics is a tightrope, and I doubt Pelosi has the acumen to walk it successfully.

This George Will column says it all, in my estimation. Here’s the money graf:

Nancy Pelosi, whose understanding of America surely is conditioned by her habitat’s 85 percent Gore-Nader majority, now will referee the Democrats’ intramural rumble between those who ascribe the party’s failure to its message and those who blame only the “articulating” of it. Actually, the party’s message, frequently communicated with ruinous clarity for five decades, is condescension toward the American people.

and a few other choice bits:

In the 1950s, when liberals were “madly for Adlai,” the country liked Ike, which deepened liberals’ disdain for the majority. It was “the bland leading the bland.” Then came liberal contempt for Ronald Reagan, a contempt now reprised regarding George W. Bush.

…

Today’s Democratic Party believes, as ardent environmentalists do, in recycling — of old newspapers, old bottles, old senators (Walter Mondale, Frank Lautenberg). And old vendettas (Florida, where the state teachers union mortgaged its Tallahassee headquarters for $1.7 million and squandered almost that much attacking Gov. Jeb Bush). Most of all, the party recycles old ideas.

…

After Britain’s Labor Party was demolished by Margaret Thatcher in the 1983 general election, an undaunted Laborite vowed, “No compromise with the electorate.” That can be the rallying cry of Pelosi Democrats.

Given the reaction of Democrats to the election results, you have to wonder if they actually believe in democracy at all. There’s very little evidence that they do, except in California.

Nancy Pelosi isn’t the first Frisco Liberal to aspire to Democratic Party leadership in the House of Reps. Her mentor and benefactor, Phil Burton, came within one vote of being elected Leader in 1976, representing the same district as Pelosi. Here’s a little background on Phil from the late John Jacobs, author of the Burton biography “Rage for Justice”:

Burton also was an alcoholic slob, an ill-mannered, ill-tempered fanatic totally, obsessively committed to promoting liberal causes. And he was very successful, passing a black lung bill that benefited hundreds of thousands of miners and their families (not one of whom lived in his district), passing Supplemental Social Security for the aged, blind and disabled, and creating the extensive national park system enjoyed across America today.

From 1964 to his premature death in 1983 he was the most influential left-liberal in the House, who came within a heartbeat of being one of the most influential politicians in the House, period. Only liquor and his big mouth got in his way. In 1976 he failed by one vote to become House Majority Leader, a position that would have likely led him to become Speaker of the House.

“Challenging Tip O’Neill to a fight killed his chances to be Majority Leader,” said Jacobs. Burton and his loyal wife, Sala, were in the cocktail bar at the Beverly Hills Hotel in 1972 having drinks with O’Neill and another couple after a fund-raising dinner. Burton was drunk and profane and when O’Neill asked him to watch his language the congressman jumped up and challenged him to a fight. Sala calmed her husband but it was too late. Burton lost control in front of the wrong man at the wrong time.

Phil created the legislative districts that guaranteed ultra-left representation in Sacramento, and even created one that ensured Congressional victory for his coke-head brother John. This district combined the most Democratic portions of 5 counties, and was only contiguous at a point beneath the Frisco Bay. When John had to leave the Congress, he bequeathed it to Barbara Boxer, his field office head.

Unbeknownst to me, Democrats disgruntled by the outcome of last week’s elections apparently sponsored a contest to elicit the most idiotic analysis of their fall from grace, with extra credit going to hateful, nasty, and abusive remarks. Thus far, the front runners in this competition are the following:

• Bill Moyers, for a column claiming that the Republican tax cut “transfer[s] wealth from working people to the rich”.
• Paul Krugman, for the column blaming the election on the media: “Democrats should complain as loudly about the real conservative bias of the media as the Republicans complain about its entirely mythical liberal bias;”
• Garrison Keillor for a column in which he made an underhanded smear about Norm Coleman’s personal life: “Everyone knows that his family situation is, shall we say, very interesting…”
• Big-time asshole Adam Clymer for comparing the Bush presidency to that of William Henry Harrison and praising swimming sensation Teddy Kennedy.
• Eric Alterman for this column blaming the media and saying: “President Bush is a liar.”
• Cynthia McKinney for this: “And finally, it is the economy, stupid!” Duh.
• And of course we can’t overlook Congressional Democrats for replacing Dick Gephardt with a Frisco liberal, but there must be more.

  UPDATE: There are. Thanks to Opinion Journal’s Best O’ the Web, some more:

• Bob Herbert, New York Times: “With two more justices like [Scalia and Thomas], progressive government would be caught in the devastating trap of a right-wing assault from all sides–the White House, the Congress and the courts–with the Treasury drained of all money for new initiatives.”
• Will Hutton, Sunday Observer (Britain): “This is the most fiercely reactionary programme to have emerged in any Western democracy since the war.”
• Mark Morford, SFGate.com: “If you are female, gay, bisexual, atheist, black, immigrant, poor, progressive, intellectual, open minded, open hearted, if you hold alternative views, dress funny, dance, enjoy sex, read seditious literature, believe in peace and funky spirituality and don’t particularly care for a sneering angry self-righteous well-armed anti-everything deity, you are about to find out. The hard way. And so is everyone else.”
• Monica Friedlander, Democrats.com: “The Democratic Party has been raped–by the GOP with their appeal to faux patriotism and wartime frenzy; and by the media who used the full power of the Fourth Estate to spin, spin, spin for the GOP.”
• Darlene Weesner, an unsuccessful candidate for county office in Florida: “Marion County is now under siege by the Gestapo, and the Fuhrer is the leader of the Republican Party. All I can tell you is the community is missing out on the wonderful plans I had in store for all of us.”
• Ira Hozinsky, in a published e-mail to bilious blogger Eric Alterman: “The reason for the Republican triumph is simple: the American people are stupid.”
• “Steve” of St. Paul, Minn., in a Boston Globe online reader forum: “…the world sees America for what it is: an over-indulgent, self-righteous, arrogant nation drowning in its own pride. Since the President asked, I will answer: I am with the terrorists.”

On the other side of the leftwing coin, David Corn puts the blame where it belongs:

The Democrats should be sued for malpractice–or nonpractice. A sluggish economy, corporate scandals, deteriorating 401(k)s–they took advantage of none of it.

At least we’ve got a little sensible dialog still.

Here’s another Dan Walters column on Pelosi and Bush:

The danger that looms for Bush over the next two years, as he readies his re-election campaign, is that with control of the White House and both houses of Congress, he and other Republicans will be held accountable for everything. And if events turn sour — if the economy crashes, the confrontation with Iraq goes badly or Republicans simply overreach — they will have no one to blame but themselves. And Pelosi and the Democrats will be certain to drive home the point.

By the same token, with Democrats in equally strong control of the California state government, thanks to last week’s election, they, too, will be held accountable for all matters negative in the state. And Republicans will gleefully point to Sacramento as an example of what could happen if Pelosi and the Democrats recapture Washington.

As strange as it may seem, Dems are seriously kicking Davis around as a potential challenger to Bush in ’04. It’s not as strange as it may seem, given that the upcoming race, as it now stands, is a job for a sacrificial lamb. Having chosen one such animal from California – Pelosi – why not another one in the form of Davis?

Dan Walters tackles the LA Times exit polls, and discovers the meaning of California’s election results:

As turnout plummeted to a historic low level — far fewer than 50 percent of registered voters and scarcely a third of the 21 million potentially eligible voters — the number of voters willing to back Davis also plunged. Nearly 5 million Californians voted for Davis in 1998, but scarcely 3 million did this year — less than 10 percent of the state’s population.

A Los Angeles Times exit poll of voters found that just 40 percent of them approved of Davis’ gubernatorial performance. His vote percentage, 47 percent, was virtually identical to the proportion of voters who identified themselves as Democrats.

Republican Bill Simon’s 42 percent, by the same token, was just above the 40 percent of voters who were Republicans. In the main, therefore, Davis got the Democratic voters and Simon got the Republican voters, and there were a few more of the former than the latter.

Ten percent of Californians voted for Davis, and that was enough to re-elect. Sad.