The myth of Palin

From the astute Jennifer Rubin, at her new venue with the Washington Post, comes this assessment of the Sarah Palin phenomenon, the full title being "The myth of Palin's frontrunner status". It's one of the very few such analyses I've come across on either the left or the right that would qualify as perceptive -- not just vis-a-vis Palin but other, more likely GOP frontrunners as well:

For months now the real story on the right has been the search for new presidential contenders. There is far more awareness than many in the media imagine among conservative activists, Tea Partyers included, of Palin's limited appeal to independent voters. ... Is she admired for her ability to rally the base? Yes. Is she especially talented at throwing the White House off stride? Obviously. Does she give voice to populists' suspicion about media bias and liberal elites? Better than most anyone on the political scene. But the notion that she is a frontrunner is an eye-roller for most elected GOP officials (Chris Christie tipped his hand a bit on late-night TV) and even for many fans who furiously defended her against what conservatives saw as excessive and unfair criticism during the 2008 race.

Indeed, more Republicans -- on the Hill and around the country -- are beginning to suspect that she might not run. Why risk her fame and her rock-star status by running and possibly losing?

Instead, and as examples of new possibilities, Rubin mentions Chris Christie, of course, as well  as Mike Pence and Paul Ryan. But she's quick to acknowledge that "Right now the frontrunner is 'none of the above.'"

"You don't deserve us!"

Here's another nice little political parable for our times (courtesy Jessica Van Sack at The Boston Herald via Ed Morrissey): "Closed market’s valediction ironically explains its failure". Once upon a time, it seems, some people decided to start a business, as happens every day. They had a plan or business model, as usual, but the model didn't really work, and both the plan and the business failed, as also happens all the time. What's different about this time, and what makes it such a delightful parable, is the attitude of the failed owners (it was an upscale food market):

“Don Otto’s Market wants to say we had few customers that understood customer loyalty and its importance to our business,” a message on its Web site reads, later adding: “If you came in only for baguettes, the occasional piece of cheese, the occasional dinner . . . you can not tell yourself you were a supporter of our market.”

Heh. Apparently, the business plan amounted to: "have customers that understand customer loyalty and its importance to the business". Somehow I doubt that's going to revolutionize the business schools. But, you know, given what I'm sure was their target demographic -- the bien pensant liberal elite and their wannabe's -- perhaps the surprise that it didn't work is understandable; certainly that churlish bit of moral bullying on the way out is in keeping.

Now, the point of a parable is that it has a point. In the example of the unnecessary traffic lights a while back, the point was that a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom can open new, unexpected paths to freedom. Here, the point is that a foolish acceptance of fashionable beliefs is no sign of elitist superiority and no  ticket of entitlement. Sound familiar? Think of large portions of the Democratic Party in particular the last few years, and of the liberal-left in general. As Morrissey says, speaking of the writer of the bitter words above, they're really exhibiting a peculiar sort of contempt:

Her contempt for her customers is not dissimilar to the contempt shown by those in political office who pass laws barring restaurants from using saturated fats in their cooking, who ban Happy Meals, and who overhaul entire economic sectors because they believe people can’t make their own choices.

And then, when their policies lose them support on historic scales, the response is never to question policies or the plan itself -- instead, it's the customers' fault! You people are too angry, they say, too bitter, too clinging, too racist, too stupid, and you just don't listen! You don't deserve us!

And you know what? We don't. So maybe the lib-left should just close their doors, like any other business too good for their customers, and try to live off their sense of their own rectitude.

Congratulations, America

Maybe about as expected overall, but a very good night, with some disappointments in the Senate, but a possibly historic (see Nate Silver, the electoral guru) result in the House, and big gains in Governorships, and state legislatures. A genuine political star in Rubio, and an interesting trio of Rubio, Allen West, and Nikki Haley. And speaking of the new Governor of South Carolina, a pretty good night for Sarah Palin too -- kind of amazing to see how, just a couple of years after a big defeat as a running mate to John McCain, she's now a national political force in her own right, while McCain's just back to being a Senator. The Tea Party in general had mixed results -- and needs to draw some lessons from that -- but I actually think McConnell was right to say that it's changed the Republican Party for good. More interesting, perhaps, has been it's impact on the Democratic Party, scaring a good many into repudiating their own left wing, and defeating many others who tried to buck that tide.

So, after a couple of setbacks starting in 2006, another substantial swing to the neo-progressive right -- now on to 2012.

A week out from the midterm

I should preface this with a reminder that I'm a Canadian, and so an observer rather than a voter. But US elections have a significant impact north of the border too -- the effect is more indirect, obviously, than our own elections, but it may well be deeper, in the influence on our political culture generally.

In any case, while I think of myself as a long-range optimist, in shorter ranges I'm inclined to prepare for worst-case scenarios. So, a week away from the mid-terms, I'm concerned that predictions of a huge Republican sweep are over-confident, and anything short of a monumental overturn will be taken as a Democrat "moral victory". Not that that means much except in the immediate aftermath, but it would have been better to see more modest expectations, and be pleasantly surprised, rather than the opposite. My own sense is that the Republicans should retake control of the House, and make gains in the Senate but be short of a majority -- that seems to me a reasonable expectation, with anything significantly more than that being a genuine Republican victory, anything less a genuine Democratic victory.

My real point, though, is that it's a mistake to look upon any one election or set of elections as some epochal, climactic, make-or-break event. That's an understandable tendency when things seem dire (and I don't doubt it's easier to say when you're out of the fray yourself, as I am) but it invites all the risks of triumphal overconfidence when things go one way, and despairing resignation when they go the other. When what's really needed is a long-term focus on changing the underlying political culture I spoke of above.

Along those lines, it can be helpful to stand back a bit and look at the real nature of the political alternatives before us, or the dimensions of political space. Elections tend to force alternatives into the single dimension of left and right, but political realities are usually more complex. So, for example, despite the general BigGov/smaller-state distinction between Democrats and Republicans, there is a BigGov, corporatist wing of the Republican Party too, just as there is limited state, free-market/capitalist wing of the Democrats. And on both sides there are the usual divisions over "social issues". But the social issues needn't separate people politically, unless they see the state as a means of enforcing their particular views or values -- in other words, it makes sense to pursue a long-term strategy of forging alliances among smaller government proponents, who are prepared to use persuasion rather than power to advance their values. And that, as I've said elsewhere, would be truly progressive.

Working ourselves up

Ross Douthat:
Paranoid About Paranoia

Makes some good points about the ratcheting up of political rhetoric -- that, apart from some rare but real crazies, the talk is overblown on both sides for effect. Bu$h is Hitler, Obama is an Islamist terrorist, etc. -- these aren't things that anyone really believes but are just ways of verbally puffing oneself up, signalling that "You really need to pay attention to me and what I'm saying, not because it's particularly reasonable but because I'm like, you know, really mad about it!"

In one sense, this is old hat, at least in America -- see the book Infamous Scribblers: the Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism by Eric Burns for some good, dirty fun involving attack politics in the early years of the Republic. What seems a bit different now, to me at least, is that the sides are more ideological, or more consciously so, than previously. That too may just be an illusion, due to the shifting nature of the ideological divisions, but, on the other hand, it may be that political venom comes to a head at times of greater political and ideological change. In which case, expect a lot more rhetorical overkill before things calm down.

Democrats getting ideas

Jennifer Rubin:

Democrats Discover Raising Taxes Is a Bad Idea

In particular, note, they're worried that raising taxes on the rich is a bad idea -- so maybe you can teach an old dog new spots, or something. There is, of course, still a deficit to worry about, and Rubin quotes another batch of Democrats doing just that, which is also welcome news, even if it's a bit late. What marks them as Democrats, though, is that they see the only policy alternatives as raising taxes or raising the deficit -- they seem constitutionally incapable of recognizing the possibility of a third alternative.

Upside down in Oz politics

Just a quick note about the recent, and still inconclusive general election Down Under -- I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on Aussie politics, but from this distance this appears like one of the strangest and most dramatic political episodes I've seen since maybe the 60's in America. To set the stage, there are two main parties, Labor and a Coalition of Liberals (larger bloc) and Nationals, plus the Greens (plus some independents, and maybe a smattering of odds and ends -- they have a preferential ballot). For a number of years early in the 2000's, the Liberal/National coalition had been in power, led by John Howard, who was as loathed by the Australian left as George Bush was by the American left. Finally, in 2007, the hated Howard was defeated, swept from office by Labor led by one Kevin Rudd -- triumphalist huzzahs on the left, and predictions of a long Labor dominance that would banish the sour memories of Howard's earlier 11 year stretch.

Two years go by, and the Labor Prime Minister, Rudd, proposes a version of cap-and-trade carbon Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This initially has broad support in polling, so much so that the then leader of the Liberals, Malcolm Turnbull, signed on with at least apparent enthusiasm, giving the proposal the much sought "bi-partisan support" at least and seeming to assure its passage. But then reality bit, fairly hard, and the real fun began. I'm not clear on the exact sequence of events, but voices began to raised against the ETS, the Climate-gate uproar got rolling and couldn't be suppressed by the media, and opposition to Turnbull within his own party over the issue mounted. That opposition quickly became so powerful that Turnbull was forced to resign as leader and Tony Abbot, an ETS critic, took over. Then Rudd seemed to vacillate himself over the ETS, perhaps sensing an electoral loser in the making. As a general election loomed, polls indicated a sharp drop in support for Labor, at least some of which was due to the now controversial ETS. Hardly had the Aussie left begun to get comfortable in their anticipated dominance, in other words, when it started to look like it was all coming undone. So, in what appears remarkably like panic, just weeks before the election, Labor dumped Rudd, installing Julia Gillard in his place. And then, just as it seemed that the switch to Gillard might save the day, the people spoke at last in yesterday's general election, and it looks as of now that the Liberals received a plurality of votes (with a preferential ballot I doubt that any party ever gets an outright majority), and may have a plurality of seats in at least the lower House, though that's still unclear. In the land of Oz, they're calling it a "hung parliament" -- though we Canadians can tell them that minority governments are quite able to get along for quite some time. In any case, that's as rapid and confused an end to a heralded political dynasty as I've seen in a while.

So, all in all, a remarkable sequence of political surprises, much of it turning on a fateful piece of ill-advised anti-climate change legislation! There's a lesson there somewhere.

Here's a quick comment by Michael Barone: "Australia votes: rightward trend in Anglosphere democracies". And here's the latest post from a man on the spot, Tim Blair: "Election 2010 IV".

How is America "exceptional"?

The video below (thanks to Neo-neocon) is the stuff of nightmares for liberals and everybody to their left -- not just a prominent right-wing talk radio figure in full cry, but Sarah Palin, of all people, by his side, nodding in agreement. That last touch may be needlessly cruel, I'll admit, but I wanted to put the video here for three reasons: first, because it's such a good example of the sort of powerful political rhetoric that conservatives in the US are able to mount that even those who disagree with it should hear it; second, because it's exactly right about the contrast between two putative sources of  good in the world, the US and the UN, with the latter coming across, finally, as a very naked emperor; and third, because it makes an important mistake about so-called American exceptionalism, which I'll get to after the video (you won't have to view it to understand the mistake):




Prager brings up a somewhat questionable Obama quote about that notion of exceptionalism (quoted recently by Krauthammer too): "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." But, Prager says, the Greeks don't believe in Greek exceptionalism, and by implication neither do any other citizens regarding their own nations. Which I think is wrong, in a significant way. I'm sure many Greeks, at least, as well as Brits, etc., do indeed think that there's something exceptional, at least in the sense of distinctive, not just about their country but about their ethnicity. The point, however, about the idea of American exceptionalism is that it's not some simple, crass expression of patriotism, but rather a serious historical observation -- that America is a nation not founded upon ethnicity but rather upon a political vision, a vision that has famously been labelled "the last, best hope of earth".

Don't worry, Democrats -- Be Happy!,

So says Charles Blow, trying to rally the troops. But first he has to admit that things aren't looking too good at the moment. It's not just that Obama's approval ratings have fallen, nor that the numbers of people who think the country's moving in the wrong direction have climbed to over 60%, "for the first time since the Bush years" -- it's also that over 40% of the people now self-identify as "conservative", vs. 20% "liberal". And the really scary thing is that there seem to be some "factors" in the real world that relate to these bad polling numbers:

Obama has been an abysmal salesman; Americans’ patience has the lifespan of a fruit fly; we are still mired in two intractable wars; the economy has yet to turn the corner; anxiety is mounting over ballooning deficits; and oil is still gushing into the gulf.

I'm not sure what the "intractable" war is besides Afghanistan, and we should probably cut him some slack on the dissing of Americans' patience, given the polls, but those other factors all look pretty dismal, no? Particularly galling must be that first one, Obama as "abysmal salesman" -- wasn't it his silver tongue that got him the job in the first place, and was going to transform American politics for a generation?

Ah, well. Whenever things look bad, just remember -- there's always the "long term". Things will just "get better", and then they won't look so bad, or something.

He actually has a point about the recession, or so we all should hope -- despite all manner of government bungling, capitalism generally rights itself sooner rather than later. And for the future, well, apparently there's growing "diversity", education, and irreligion to keep hope alive for shivering Democrats. He might have some kind of point there too, but -- and I'm just throwing this out -- what if none of those things really made the growing numbers of non-Democrats feel any better about the reaching tentacles of Big Gov swaddling embrace of Big Nanny?