A Second Hand Conjecture

Somewhat tortuously, the State Department has congratulated the victory of Hugo Chavez’s referendum to revoke term limits on his rule as a victory for participatory democracy, while faintly recommending a new respect for multiparty pluralism. Consider for a moment if you were to receive official foreign congratulations for your civic virtue, upon learning that a president of the United States had just succeeded in repealing the 22nd Amendment, allowing him to serve forever as permanent head of state. A cold experience, surely.

Congratulating this referendum is an insult to liberal forces in Venezuela which have been battling mightily against long odds and at risk of arrest, to preserve some semblance of a liberal society in a country deeply mired in the grip of crypto-fascist hysteria.

One of the most regrettable ideas of the Bush years was the then president’s bizarre belief that any political outcome was ultimately justifiable if it were arrived at by course of a general election. Something that even the experience of an elected Hamas government in Gaza apparently failed to completely dissuade him of. It’s a pity to learn that we’ve traveled even further down this misbegotten path with a new administration.

It should be understood that it is the liberal dispossition –one that supports and informs constitutional restraint on state power– not the democratic procedure, that distinguishes Western democracy from being the will of a fanatical mob. Liberalism is the soul that makes democracy moral and viable. The United States should not praise any democratic outcome as instinsically worthwhile, as Bush once did. What it should praise are liberal democratic outcomes….and Chavez’s coupling of potential permanence with his already near autocratic authority, is no victory for liberalism.

4 Comments »

Rasmussen has polled the public on whether they agreed with President Bush’s characterization of capitalism as the “highway to the American Dream.” Only 44% voiced support for capitalism, 33% were undecided and 22% expressed opposition. A grim finding. Only Republicans marshaled an absolute majority of support for the system, commendably voting 4:1, independents had a plurality of support, and Democrats were evenly split.

It should be observed that it is not without historical precendent that a victorious power would quickly wish to transform itself into the image of the enemy it proved its system utterly superior to, rejecting the values and virtues which had enabled her to triumph, in favor of those which had condemned her adversary to defeat. Indeed, it’s a bizarre but relatively common historical temptation if considered.

1 Comment »

It occurs to me that the sequence of cocktails is the best political indicator I know of on election night. In 2004 I was attending a Democratic election party and early on everyone was drinking wine and martinis in stemware, or beer and soda in tall glasses. The ambiance befit the beverages: general levity and young merriment. Sporty coquettish girls with wide white toothy smiles dominated all conversations.

But when it became clear that the exit polls predicting a Kerry victory were wildly mistaken, and field reports were coming in on cell phones of Karl Rove’s successful mobilization effort, it wasn’t long before the assembled Democrats had exchanged their drinks for short glasses filled with dark brown fluids. To match the new taste for scotch and bourbon whiskey, the sporty girls seemed to disappear and old men began to dominate conversations.

(more…)

2 Comments »

According to the Associated Press, a sequence of interviews with Democratic leaders has revealed this to be the political plan being recommended to the Obama campaign:

1. Tie the Republican to an unpopular President Bush.
2. Let no charge go unanswered.
3. Stress plans to fix the economy.

Well, I’m not sure any of these items is good advice, with a possible qualitative exception on #3.
(more…)

1 Comment »

Longtime Clinton ally Leon Panetta pronounces Barack Obama “intimidated” by Sarah Palin, and lost in a deepening cycle of reactive defense. With McCain now winning a majority of independents and erasing the gender gap, the blood is most definitely in the water. It’s now a legitimate question to ask whether McCain can finish him off. My sense is that the Obama campaign isn’t too many more mistakes removed from a serious structural collapse in a significant segment of its support outside the Democratic ranks. Panetta is quite right, Obama needs to regain the initiative and fast.

On that matter Jonathan Freedland is pessimistic. So much so, that he is evidently consumed with stomach pains of grief. He warns us that the entire planet will seek revenge against the United States if we fail to appoint Obama president.
(more…)

1 Comment »

Some of Bob Woodward’s criticism in his upcoming fourth volume on the Bush presidency: “He had not rooted out terror wherever it existed. He had not achieved world peace.”

No Comments »

According to ThinkProgress’ count President Bush went completely unmentioned last night at the convention. Rather sad and rather weak. There are plenty of defensible polices of the administration (if there seem to be an equal number of indefensible ones). Avoiding the subject altogether without even a cursory acknowledgment is a sign of unnecessary fear, which can only supply further confidence to the opposition.

No Comments »

A bit of a departure from the Bush/Cheney experience in 2000 and 2004.

No Comments »

It’s rather amusing to see the ticket lacking in any executive experience, with a presidential nominee of extremely limited elected experience, attempting to attack McCain’s vice presidential nominee on grounds of inexperience. Reeling a bit perhaps. A more mature Democratic attack would go after the trooper scandal, the charge of reform hypocrisy and Sarah’s connection to energy company interests. Not that this would prove more successful mind you, but it’s a defter charge that takes account of the Obama campaign’s own manifest weakness in the more important area of the presidential nominee’s inexperience.

It’s also a more traditional process to select a presidential nominee with considerable experience, while taking on a younger apprentice for the vice presidential nominee. Obama, by selecting Biden, is only replicating the George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy departures from this predominant historical pattern. A departure that I think we’ve been arguably ill-served by in both cases.

No Comments »

Jonathan Stein at MotherJones says he has managed to find five things that the Bush administration has done right. In the end though, he only manages four.

No Comments »

Michael Goodwin concludes that the Biden pick is identical in cause and format to Bush’s selection of Dick Cheney in 2000. I tend to agree, but then I’ve been convinced for a long time that Obama’s entire campaign is all but explicitly modeled on Bush’s 2000 strategy and approach. Democrats often have the bad habit of thinking Republican marketing is smarter than it is.

3 Comments »

There’s a certain problem in that the folks who protest most vociferously about the Bush administration’s violations of free speech rights, also tend to support the direct government regulation of political speech. A disturbing poll suggests they may have the wind at their back, with 47% (a plurality) supporting federal regulation of political content on television and radio, with 31% (a minority), supporting the same for blogs. Needless to say, this is an abhorrent finding.

No Comments »

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd witnessed a heated discussion between Bush and Putin over Georgia.

No Comments »

Slowly the gears turn, but Washington and Tbilisi’s positions inch further into concord by the minute. The infamous “unnamed senior US official,” behind all important news events of the last century has spoken:

A senior U.S. official says Russia has attacked areas of the former Soviet state that are far away from the separatist province of South Ossetia where the fighting has centered. The Bush administration also says the Russian military is striking civilian areas.

The official said Saturday that Moscow’s military response is disproportionate to the threat and Russia has stymied attempts at mediation aimed at arranging a cease-fire.
(AP)

That’s the embryo of a case that will go to Europe. Russia is in imminent danger of overreaching as badly as Georgia did.

1 Comment »

According to rumor, President Bush is somewhere in this photo. I’ve looked several times. Haven’t yet seen him.

1 Comment »

Approval ratings for recent presidents at the end of their final terms. Bush will presumably end somewhere in Carter’s 1980 territory.

(About.com)

Lest that depress McCain supporters, such measures can of course be highly misleading in predicting general election outcomes for their successors. Nixon’s 1968 victory was a damned near run thing, and despite the lingering unpopularity of Nixon in 1976, and a generally toxic atmosphere for the GOP in general, it should be remembered that Ford nearly beat Carter (popular vote: 50.1 to 48%, electoral college 297 to 240). Of all these presidents’ personal histories, political philosophies, personalities and general images, McCain and Ford’s are probably most similar. Right down to being Naval war heroes.

Speaking of which, if you’ve never read the story of how a young Lt. j.g. Gerald Ford saved the ship one night in the Pacific, it’s worth a moment to do so.

No Comments »

(photo: WBEZ Chicago Public Radio | site)

Obama’s newish McSame style attack ad mocking McCain’s “original maverick” slogan is fairly good. As Ken Wheaton notes, all the time McCain had to spend trying to convince the GOP he was a loyal Republican, unfortunately produced a lot of pro-Bush statements on videotape. Also, I like the Rovian touch of attacking McCain’s strength: experience.

(more…)

2 Comments »

Nancy Pelosi might have finally found a fig leaf for the Left — dying as it is for some form of tangible revenge against the Bush administration for allegedly ruining their lives.  Unwilling (and frankly unable) to impeach Bush and Cheney, or throw half the administration into prison in medieval shackles, she’s dangling the possibility of issuing a toothless contempt citation for Karl Rove. Perhaps it will placate her legions of critics at ThinkProgress, et al. Methinks not though.

No Comments »

Among other great news from Iraq. Victory is a good exit strategy.

No Comments »

Meet Shirley Golub, a feisty San Franciscan who is challenging Nancy Pelosi for the Democratic nomination in the 8th Congressional District of California, on the grounds that she’s just not anti-Bush enough. Shirley fears above all that if Bush isn’t impeached, he’ll invade Iran. Yes, you might say that Bush will not even be in office if Shirley were to be elected in place of Nancy. But Shirl says it’s just a symptom of “corporate brainwashing” to suggest it’s too late to impeach. You must understand Shirley is very anti-Bush. It wouldn’t be the first time that obsessive and excessive animosity toward this president bent reality a little bit, and sent people spinning off into pointless efforts.

3 Comments »

Previously posted on last.fm, now with political addendum at the end.

The concept of the price of fame is usually applied in the sense of the personal cost to the famous, from the relatively mild annoyance of not being able to go out without being recognized, to the deep existential crises and insanity of megastars like Kurt Cobain and Michael Jackson. You could certainly argue that Kurt and Michael would have been crazy anyway, but clearly becoming famous was not healthy for either of them.

But there is another cost of fame that is a little harder to pin down, because it’s the cost that is charged to a band’s account of cool points when the band gets too famous. In some contexts, this cool-points account might be called “indie cred” or “punk cred” or (more generally) “authenticity.” I’m sure there are specific equivalents for jazz and metal and klezmer and so on, but it all comes down to the same thing.

If you are an indie kid or a hipster of any stripe, or have spent any time around hipsters, you have experienced or observed the phenomenon of the band that gets too famous for its original fans to tolerate, as if the band’s quality is dependent upon its obscurity. Of course that’s objectively ridiculous, but music fandom is no science, and people naturally enjoy music for more than its purely musical qualities. So it’s understandable why a fan might grow bitter at the object of his (gendered pronoun intentional—it’s usually guys who do this) affection’s success. Now he has to share with a bunch of bandwagoneers who weren’t there during the lean times and who can’t possibly understand what made this band really great. That’s a bit of a caricature, of course. Sometimes when a band gets famous the quality of the music really does decline, sometimes via intentional changes (the “sell-out”), sometimes because the band has started to run out of ideas, and sometimes because the band has plenty of new ideas but they aren’t very good.

With that groundwork laid, I want to posit a kind of weird argument: that ZZ Top is an underrated band today. Yes, that band that is enshrined in the Rock’n’Roll Hall of Fame, the one that played to packed stadiums and sold multi-platinum heaps of records. That band that played a Super Bowl halftime show with James Brown. I realize that the concepts of “underrated” and “overrated” are thrown around a lot, usually meaning “this band is way too good to be so obscure” or “this band isn’t good enough to be this popular.” That’s not really what I’m interested in. Instead, I’d like to talk about ZZ Top’s critical reputation and its lack of currency or buzz among contemporary hipsters, and to argue that ZZ Top is (critically) underrated precisely because of their MTV-era success.

(more…)

No Comments »

Some interesting parallels with our current situation and the period before the Great Depression. Interestingly, it seems the Democrats are intent on not learning from history, at least not about what led us to the Depression. Or maybe they want a replay of the policies that helped drag us out of the Depression.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=alBsmRS72DyM

Schumer used the Bear Stearns collapse to call for “a greater degree of regulation” in the industry that is relevant this time, investment banking.

Hoover knew free trade was beneficial. But his party, the Grand Old Party, was the tariff party. So in spite of himself, he signed a big new tariff, the Smoot-Hawley act, triggering retaliation from U.S. trading partners.

For many decades now, Democrats have contrasted Hoover’s concession to protectionists unfavorably with free-trade legislation written by Roosevelt and his globalization guru, Secretary of State Cordell Hull.

Today it is the Democrats who are doing wrong, and they know better. Candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both internationalists by temperament, yet they seem to be in a race to see who can repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement first.

Channeling Hull

Bush, by contrast, was channeling Hull when he called a plan to reject a new trade accord with Colombia “a terrible signal.”

Finally, there was Hoover’s tax policy. Today every fool, right or left, knows that imposing a tax increase in an economic downturn is like kicking a wounded man in the stomach.

Yet in the dark days of 1932, with unemployment at 20 percent, Hoover perversely signed an increase that reversed the multiple cuts by his predecessor, Calvin Coolidge.

Hoover more than doubled rates at the bottom of the tax schedule. He also increased the top marginal tax rate to 63 percent from 25 percent. The effect was predictable. That tax error has haunted economists ever since.

Yet today it is not Republicans but Democrats who are preparing to replicate it. Obama has suggested a payroll tax increase and an income tax increase; together they would just about offset all the breaks created by Bush. Clinton is scarcely different. Who’s Hoover now?

No Comments »

There’s editorial sensationalism, and then there’s Keith Olbermann. Consider Mr. Olbermann on Bush recently: “If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You’re a fascist! Get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism?” Plutocracy, would perhaps be a better term for what he’s after. Or to be both frank and cynical about it, he just described government of almost every kind. Fascism worthy of the name would propose the seamless mutuality of nationalism and socialism, in the service of dictatorship. Collusion between big business and the state is generally incidental. And wherever it occurs, the role for business is entirely subordinate not reciprocal, as Keith would have you believe. Power is not for sharing under fascism. For too many people unfortunately, the word has taken on a entirely personal definition, meaning “that of which I disapprove.”

No Comments »

source image: heartcores

I’m posting the news rather late because…well, because I’m writing from New Mexico. It should come as no surprise to the election observer, that the Land of Enchantment is once again rather late in declaring a winner in an election. This time it was the Democratic caucuses, and the winner was Hillary Clinton. New Mexico is always late because almost every election seems to break even in this politically divided swing state (and partly because alacrity just isn’t the state’s highest virtue).

In 2004 it took the state canvassing board three weeks to finally declare a winner in the presidential election. That year, California managed to get ten million ballots counted in a couple of hours, while New Mexico Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron, was busy complaining to the press about being overwhelmed with merely 7% as many. Incidentally, if you pronouce her name vee-hill-her-own, you could be a native.

But we should hope the occasion of the recount is just ordinary local narrowness, and not an unwelcome portent that the country hasn’t yet overcome her predilection for narrow national election results. On a raw and bitter level, I’d have trouble enduring another post-election experience full of recounts, recriminations, farcical conspiracy theories and obstinate resistance to obvious concessions. Remember this sort of thing?

Kerry won. Here’s the facts. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted….
(TomPaine)

The 2004 presidential contest between Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry and the Republican incumbent, President Bush Jr., amounted to another stolen election.
(CommonDreams)

Ominously enough, some people are already starting to say similarly strange and obdurate things:

To imply that the New Mexico gives Clinton a win amid a string of losses, is to imply a falsehood.
(Dakota Voice)

This time around I could be pleased with whomever won, if they could give me a Reagan ‘84, Nixon ‘72, or Johnson ‘64 style annihilation of their opponent. A year without another hand recount in New Mexico would be a good thing for this country.

No Comments »

photo: Chris Dunn

Spiegel has a typically aggressive (and aggressively European) interview with John McCain today. In many ways it’s an interesting yet disappointing exercise, due to its focus on the perceived past sins of the Bush administration. While much ground is covered, a little too often Spiegel essentially asks “Bush did XYZ, which is bad. How will you differ?” That comes at the expense of examining many questions about the future Atlantic partnership.

However, the responses are interesting…particularly in tone. McCain gives Europe answers that in many ways will not conform to their desires in practical terms. But in a way, may be answers which seem more palatable to them. After all, the European adoration of international negotiation, consultative diplomacy and multilateral consent for its own sake, is on a certain popular level a superficial partiality for words and handshakes. One that by nature is always highly susceptible to the rephrasing of any given position to achieve acquiescence.

A few key responses from McCain:

(more…)

No Comments »

Grover Norquist suggests that public disatisfaction with the Republican party is driven solely by hostility to President Bush. McCain’s differences with the Bush administration and its supporters thus strengthen his appeal with the county. As Grover puts it: “This is Sarkozy saying, ‘I’m not Chirac. I’m the change, and she’s [opponent Segolene Royal] the socialist.’” Too bad McCain doesn’t have Sarko’s innovative ideas, vigor, youth, rhetorical skills and party popularity too though no? Sarkozy the American notes that excluding Iraq, McCain is far more Chirac than Sarkozy.
(H/T: Freedom’s Lighthouse)

No Comments »

Karl Rove and George Bush and Dick Cheney will have many disastrous legacies, but one of the most despicable and enduring will be how they used fear to deeply and deliberately divide our country

I don’t think that it really does. The author is sort of famous and stuff but I prefer to ignore the politics of certain classes of people (ie. entertainers or artists) if at all possible.

But it makes my fingers itch, and I just want to go leave a comment where I found this and point out that the *division* started before Rove or Bush or Cheney were actually in power. The *division* started when Gore deliberately and purposefully decided that public confidence in the *process* was less important than a chance of him winning and deliberately and purposefully decided to undermine and destroy public confidence in the democratic process.

And it went on, before 9-11 and any issues of “fear”, as those buying into the whole “he stole the election” thing demanded that Bush carry on a Democrat agenda (because he didn’t *really* win) and that Bush ought to tell those Republicans who might think he owed *them* a Republican agenda, to shove it. Do you remember this pre-9/11 attitude? I sure do.

There never was any “meet in the middle”. There never was any bi-partisanship. And blaming that on Bush and Cheney and Rove is just a wee bit obtuse.

If we want to find blame for the deliberate division of our country (not that it’s a particularly *new* thing) perhaps we ought to look to those who made outright opposition to the administration a party loyalty test and threw out (or tried to) those who didn’t turn against the decisions they had participated in and approved of once the initial hot feeling from 9-11 was over.

Utterly refusing to participate and then stomping and howling that it’s all the the other guy’s fault that you can’t play together isn’t the behavior of grown-ups.

3 Comments »

Antiwar groups are dropping their effort to cut off funding for the Iraq war. They’ve decided to concentrate instead on preventing the president from negotiating a long term defense treaty with the Iraqi government. I suppose the thinking is that if you can’t lose the war during the fighting, try to prevent the victory from being secured and deliberately forfeit your gains. A fairly transparent acknowledgment that the war is a purely political issue for them.

2 Comments »