The Games Politicians Play

I don't know if Obama should scold the person who stuck the birth control provision into the stimulus bill, or thank them. The scolding should follow from the fact that this was supposed to be a pork-free, non-political bill that could pass with broad bipartisan approval. The birth control provision gave right-wing Republicans a talking point - they could point to it and say "What does birth control have to do with stimulation."

And that brings us to the possible "Thank you." Other than being fodder for an easy one-liner, Republican opposition has been unprincipled and dishonest. The fact is, the provision is good public policy and is consistent with the Medicare policies of a number of Republican governors. It would have saved those governors a ton of money and unnecessary hassle in obtaining waivers so that they could offer birth control benefits through Medicaid. And when the provision was dropped, the Republican answer was still "no" - giving Obama the opportunity to... do this:

“We’re not going to get 100 percent agreement, and we might not even get 50 percent agreement, but I do think people appreciate me walking them through my thought process,” the president said, as he left a meeting with GOP senators just off the Senate floor.

“I hope I communicated a sincere desire to get good ideas from everybody,” he added. “My attitude is this the first major piece of legislation we’ve worked on, and that, over time, some of these habits of consultation and mutual respect will take over, but old habits die hard.”

The shoe is on the other foot. The Republicans were ignoring public policy in favor of a talking point, leaving Democrats to explain why the birth control provision belongs in a stimulus package and makes good sense. Now the talking point is gone and the Republicans are left to sputter things like "We need more tax cuts" or "It's unfocused... not that we have any better ideas".

Obama was placed in an awkward position by the legislators who stuck the birth control provision into the stimulus bill. That measure was inconsistent with his stated goals for the bill. But to ask for its removal opened him up to attacks from the left, accusations that he's selling out women's health. While it's standard Washington fare to stick appropriations like this into "must pass" legislation, this really wasn't the time. I hope that Democratic party leaders have a bit of a sit-down after this, to discuss how they might avoid shooting the President and themselves in the foot over the next two years. Meanwhile, they should work to get a similar appropriation passed through, perhaps, a bill directing some aid or assistance to the states or updating Medicaid rules.

What A Pathetic Display

The Washington Post, observing that the only proposal to save the auto industry is failing in the Senate - due to, of all things, a Republican demand for what amount to wage caps on auto workers - "What's Plan B?" It astonishes me that a Republican President can't convince enough of his own party's senators of the urgency of action, that they drop their filibuster threat. In what seems like "business as usual", a scheduled vacation appears more important to the Democrats than actually forcing the Republicans to break out their encyclopedias and, if they truly wish to block the bill, actually filibuster.

The short answer to the question, "What's Plan B", appears to be to use TARP money for the bail-out, which could mean that none of the restrictions, compromises, or demands placed upon the Big Three by the bailout bill will be implemented. The Republican Party may be giddy with the idea of harming or breaking the UAW and benefitting the foreign auto manufacturers who are located in "red states", but G.W. is worried about the tattered remnants of his legacy.

"Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry," Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said.

And, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it is considering using the Wall Street rescue fund to prevent the USA's strapped carmakers from failing.

I like that - it's "because Congress failed to act", rather than, "Because the President couldn't convince his own party to back a bill he supports." Perino elaborated that "it would be 'irresponsible' to further erode the economy by allowing failure in Detroit", but how about some honesty here about just who it is that the President is describing as irresponsible.

The Washington Post repeats some common, yet silly, complaints about the auto industry,

Furthermore, if the Detroit carmakers are going to survive, they will have to completely overhaul the way they do business - and start building cars that people will buy.

Lets look back a whole year:

General Motors announced today that it sold 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide in 2007, which puts it in a dead heat with Toyota for the title of world's best-selling automaker.

Now the Big Three deserve criticism for disregarding the end of cheap oil, but really... but for the spike in gas prices this summer and the current financial crises, at current gas prices those highly profitable gas guzzling vehicles "that no one wants" would be flying off of car lots across the nation. (If auto makers booked their profits when those vehicles sold, as opposed to when they were shipped to dealerships, they would be looking a lot healthier right now - because sales appear to be picking up.)

For that, they are going to need new leadership, a rational assessment of their long record of failure and, yes, a much larger infusion of government cash.

We're back to that "new leadership" thing.... Something the Post isn't demanding of the finance industry, despite a perhaps unparalleled record of failure and incompetence by its leaders. Heck, the Post doesn't even appear upset by the astronomical wages, bonuses, and even stock dividends that bailed-out financial companies are paying with taxpayer money.

Perhaps we need a financial industry czar - somebody who saw that derivatives were, let's say, a "time bomb" or as "financial weapons of mass destruction"... Oh, but let's be realistic. Nobody could have seen the financial industry's problems coming. We need to find a Warren Buffett for the intelligence community, and apparently we need a Warren Buffett for the auto industry. It's truly a shame we can't find a Warren Buffett for the financial industry.

I've already commented, but it bears repeating - where exactly does the Post imagine that the Big Three will find "magic men" to lead them in a new direction? Ford got its CEO from Boeing; Chrysler's CEO used to head, of all things, Home Depot. How far outside the industry is far enough to satisfy this ridiculous demand - and what's wrong with looking for people within the industry who actually know about cars and may even have a track record of developing vehicles that are suited to the future?

Nobody - including the carmakers - fully understands the depth of Detroit’s problems or how much money it will take to dig them out. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, told Congress last week that rescuing the companies would cost taxpayers $75 billion to $125 billion over the next two years. And that’s probably optimistic.

Now that's a fair criticism. Chrysler, for example, is pretending that the bailout will result in a quick return to profitability. Does it believe that, or is it spinning a fairy tale? If the former, there's good cause to question the competence of its leadership. If the latter, it appears to be part of a mendacious plan by Cerberus Capital Management to get a taxpayer subsidy that allows it to avoid taking a loss on a bad investment. As you already know, I think it's the latter.

If the Big Three are glossing over a future that, realistically, will require a taxpayer bailout exceeding $100 billion, we should be sending them back to revise their plans to reflect that reality - and to demonstrate how they could recover with a smaller infusion of taxpayer money.

Beyond the Post's dream that the Big Three will find "magic men" to take over for their present leadership, it whines,

And the bill doesn’t set any conditions to ensure automakers invest in fuel-efficient vehicles. Any long-term plan must make sure the automakers don’t simply keep making gas-guzzling trucks and sport-utility vehicles, whose popularity - unfortunately - has recovered as gas prices have declined.

There's not even a slight effort to achieve internal consistency. If the idea is to force auto manufacturers to build cars that consumers want, it appears that they are doing so - as long as gas prices are low. If the idea is to force them to give up their gas guzzlers in favor of fuel-sipping vehicles, that's something quite apart from getting them to build the vehicles people want to buy. Let's be blunt - if you could build a car the size of a small house, have it get 25 MPG, do 0-60 in less than ten seconds, and sell it in various forms for $20-$30K, it would be the most popular car in America. (The auto manufacturers are about as likely to be able to create such a car as they are to find the Post's "magic man" leaders, so don't accuse me of being unrealistic.)

It should go without saying, but it doesn't - so here we go again. If the goal is to create a competitive domestic auto industry, you can't do that by hamstringing auto makers and forcing them to build under fuel efficiency standards that don't apply to their competitors. If you want more fuel efficient cars on the road, build an even playing field by instituting new, meaningful CAFE standards that apply to everyone.

If the Post is correct, that it's going to take $75 - $125 billion to turn around the domestic auto industry, then perhaps its time to think about something far different from a bailout that tries to keep the three auto makers in business. There are a number of options, short of and including bankruptcy, that should be considered in the new year. Assuming GM and Chrysler aren't already in bankruptcy by then.

But how about at least passing a contingency plan - an authorization of aid to parts suppliers to keep them out of bankruptcy in the event that Chrysler and/or GM file Chapter 11. If we're going to risk that they fail, let's at least try to keep them from dragging Ford down with them.

That "Why The Party Failed" Thing

In taking on Ross Douthat's tendentious piece on abortion, I didn't address his headline, ostensibly the thesis of his piece, that "Abortion Politics Didn’t Doom the G.O.P." Of course not. If the GOP's approach to abortion politics were to doom it, it would not be by driving away people like Kathleen Parker and Max Boot. It will be when the religious right gets tired of promises, promises, promises and no delivery, and the single issue anti-abortion voters either vote for a third party candidate or stay home. What doomed the Republican Party in the 2008 election was the Bush Administration's top-to-bottom, back-to-front incompetence, coupled with a dozen or so too many corruption scandals.

Which isn't to say that, within the foreseeable future, I won't be writing pretty much the same thing about a future Democratic administration....

I Wonder If We'll Ever Learn....

A few months back, I suggested that Mitt Romney's campaign song should be Everclear's "Everything to Everyone".

A song about a habitual appeaser for a man who will say anything to get elected, even if he said something completely different fifteen seconds earlier. The song is about how appeasement leads to failure, and I suspect that it will prove to be on the mark.

You remember Mitt Romney - the guy who got rich as a corporate raider, trading in no small part on his daddy's name and connections, became governor in Massachusetts, despite being a Republican professed a wide range of beliefs better associated with liberalism, passed a bunch of expensive legislation, and skipped town to run for President before his popularity might be tarnished by its cost. Oh, you can find more flattering biographies, even hagiographies, I'm sure... But from what I saw of the man running for President, I can't see how they're deserved. Oh, I know, his defenders say he never got a chance to "introduce himself", but... why are we still waiting for this mythic figure to step forward and fill the shoes of the doppleganger we have met?

Oh yeah, you do what they tell you to do,
You say what you say,
You try to be everything to everyone...

Not quite a year ago, when campaigning in Michigan, Mitt had this to say:

“If we are going to be the world’s greatest economic power, we must invest in our future. It’s time to be bold.” He continued, “First, I will make a five-fold increase – from $4 billion dollars to $20 billion dollars – in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology.”

He said Washington has to invest in Michigan and not just bemoan the high unemployment rate and failing economy:

“Look how industries in other states have thrived from the spin out of technologies from our investment in these areas. So if we can invest in health care, in defense, and in space, why not also invest in energy and fuel technology here in Michigan?”

In a veiled attack on his rival here, he said that Washington is pessimistic about jobs coming back to Michigan, something John McCain has said previously, but has backed away from in the days before the primary:

“Washington politicians look at Michigan and see a rust belt. But the real rust is in Washington.” The former Massachusetts governor continued, “The pessimist will point to an empty factory and a laid off worker and say they have no future. Instead, I see a vital infrastructure, a skilled workforce, and an innovative spirit all worthy of an optimistic vision and deserving of a leader who will work tirelessly to deliver the power and potential of Michigan and the American people.”

In addition to offering to throw as much as $20 billion at the auto industry, Romney took a decidedly anti-environmentalist, anti-conservationist stance, but seemed to stand squarely behind the CEO's of the Big Three with no doubt about their ability to lead the transformation of the auto industry:

He criticized Mr. McCain for backing a bill that would have pushed to cap and trade greenhouse gas emissions, which Mr. Romney called a "job killer." And he promised to bring representatives from the automotive industry, unions, Congress, and the state of Michigan together in his first 100 to come up with a plan to "rebuild America's automotive leadership."

He unabashedly courted the union vote:

"I'm committed to fighting for every good job in this country and Michigan and across the country, and that connection I have to the state is just enough to help bring people who are normally thinking to vote toward the Democratic side to vote for me," he said.

When John McCain offered some genuine straight talk, that there had been a significant loss of manufacturing jobs in Michigan and "some of those jobs aren't coming back", Romney jumped down his throat:

Mr. Romney seized on Mr. McCain's "straight talk" as an example of Washington's pessimism and indifference to Detroit.
"A lot of Washington politicians are aware of Michigan's pain, but they haven't done anything about it," Mr. Romney said. "There are some people who don't think there's a future for the domestic automobile industry. They think the industry and its jobs are gone forever. They are wrong."

But remember, that wasn't the real Mitt Romney - we hadn't been introduced to him at that point.

You know all the right people,
You play all the right games,
You always try to be everything to everyone...

Now, unbelievably, it appears that Mitt Romney is trying to position himself as the heir to the Republican Party. This puts him in a rarefied league presently otherwise composed of Sarah Palin and, yes, Newt Gingrich. So what does Mr. Appeaser do when confronted with a crisis in the auto industry, and finds the leadership of his party suggesting that good manufacturing jobs are gone forever, don't have any concern for Michigan's pain, and have even less desire to do something about it? People he says are "wrong"? Did he hold true to his promise to bring the auto executives together to forge a new path for the industry? You guessed it - he's arguing that we should Let Detroit Go Bankrupt....

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

* * *

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

Break the union and fire the management teams for the Big Three? He's not making a policy statement - he's pandering to a faction of the Republican Party that sees little value in maintaining an American industrial base, and sees union busting as a leading civic virtue. As Motor Trend puts it,

"The financial straits that the Big Three find themselves in is not the product of our current economic downturn," harrumphed Senator Richard Shelby, senior Republican on the Banking Committee in a written statement, "but instead is the legacy of its manufacturing and labor force."

Well, yes, GM and Ford Motor Company haven't posted profits for years. And Chrysler, shielded first by Daimler and now Cerberus, is in worse shape. Cerberus has finally dropped the ruse that it's in the car business for the long-term.

Most of us would love just a portion of the UAW's health care benefits. But Shelby is typical of so many of our leaders who don't care about manufacturing, let alone automobile manufacturing. He's senior Republican of the Senate Banking Committee, after all.

Please excuse the following redundancy, but I can't emphasize it enough: making cars and trucks takes loads of time and money.

If you work for, or with, the banking or finance industries, you might someday come to realize this (as Cerberus has), but you won't like it. Wall Street, and much of Capitol Hill, likes "industry" to make "financial products," computer software and websites, things that can be made out of thin air or by college grads who don't ask for health benefits. Ask New York Times Pulitzer winner Thomas Friedman, who apparently believes Steve Jobs could have a Chevy iCar on the road in a year if the Apple chief took over GM.

We knew all along that Mitt was most at home in the banking and finance industries; he's apparently now out to prove that, with all of his claims of inherited wisdom about autos, he's not just another anti-manufacturing, anti-union Republican, he's ready to be their leader.

I think you like to be their simple toy,
I think you like to be their clown....

As Motor Trend notes, even those most sympathetic to the auto industry are anticipating significant structural changes, plant closures and union concessions, in all likelihood including the resignation of GM's CEO.

But while many Republicans see the fall of Detroit as just reward for the UAW, Democrats in Congress are ready to impose sacrifice on the UAW as well as automakers, in exchange for loan guarantees. Congressman [Elijah] Cummings [(D-MD)]... told MSNBC he supports bailing out GM, Ford and Chrysler, but that the automakers "may have to change union contracts."

The problem here isn't that Romney has pulled yet another of his flip-flops - his abdications of everything he once supposedly stood for in the name of advancing himself politically. If you've watched Romney at all, you know that the man (again, doppleganger Romney, as we haven't yet met the real one) will say and do anything to advance himself, even if it means repudiating what he professed only minutes before to be his deepest and most heart-felt beliefs. The problem isn't that he's calling for serious reforms by the beneficiaries of federal aid before it's granted (not that he's in favor of granting it... today). It's not that he's stupid. Perhaps it's the opposite. The man has an above-average mind, yet he spews nonsense that betrays either that he's fundamentally ignorant of his area of supposed expertise, or that he's lying.

Let's take a look at his two main criticisms of the auto industry. First, they're supposedly being broken by labor costs, and apparently nothing has been done to address this problem:

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

Oh, you mean like, to a substantial degree, what they've already done? If I assumed Romney to be an idiot, his ignorance might be excusable, but he's not an idiot. Also, just because the process of shifting responsibility for retiree benefits and pensions from the Big Three onto the unions isn't yet complete doesn't mean it's not well underway. Does he truly not know this, or is he lying?

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

This man has been in business? Truly? If we accept his figure, he believes that costs are fixed per vehicle, such that you should assign the same labor cost to a subcompact sedan as you would assign to a luxury SUV? With no consideration of actual cost or plant efficiency? He doesn't understand that the Big Three aren't building vehicles using $2,000 less in materials per car - they don't build cars for less, which is why on a per vehicle basis they lose money on those sales. As somebody who supposedly knows about business, if he truly believes that the Big Three are producing competitive products with better paid labor for $2,000 less per vehicle, why isn't he championing their management (like he used to) instead of calling for a decapitation?

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries - from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

That's great idea! Ford should bring in a CEO from a company like Boeing! Oh... They did that? Then Chrysler should get taken over by a covey of Romney-style corporate raiders who can take it private, clean house and... Oh... They did that? Beyond that, did Romney fail to notice, growing up, that his Daddy rose to be CEO of AMC by virtue of his years of experience within the auto industry? Is his present contempt for industry experience, if not feigned, some sort of Oedipal thing? Really, assuming that it's dead wrong to use executives who are experienced with an industry to run or revive that industry, whence Romney's "magic men" from the outside who will achieve a 21st century transformation? According to Romney, after all, Cerberus couldn't find one, and their financial wizards are paying tens of millions in bonuses to hang on to the "failed" team they have in place.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

Wait a minute... so forty or fifty years ago his father, either on his way to being or already installed as CEO of AMC, discussed these crucial issues with the head of the UAW, the UAW guy described them as being on an unsustainable path and... daddy squandered the opportunity? Seriously, what am I supposed to make of this anecdote?

I love this part, not because it's not a valid point, but because it's industry-specific:

Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms - all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Where's Romney's similar call for sacrifice by the financial industry? No more executive dining rooms, corporate jets and the like, until the economy's back on track? There's unquestionably a culture of overcompensation among this nation's executive class, but it's silly to use the issue to attack the auto industry or to pretend that it is somehow unique. Assuming that it truly has ended its post-collapse luxury junkets, has AIG shuttered its executive dining room and grounded its corporate jets? Where's Romney's lament? Scheduling conflicts excluded, has Mitt himself ever declined a ride on a corporate jet or a free dinner in an executive dining room?

As a practical matter, the "fixes" Romney proposes can't go through unless the Big Three go through bankruptcy or something like it. And (assuming he doesn't flip-flop again tomorrow, or hasn't flip-flopped while I was writing this), if we don't put form over substance, I'm on the same page as him in terms of their being a need for some serious changes. But Romney's eager pandering to anti-union factions of the Republican Party, in breach of both word and supposed bond with the state he sort of claims as his own, is pretty revolting. I'm not willing to pretend that his flip-flops and misrepresentations are anything but posturing and positioning, in the hope of advancing himself politically - even if it harms the country.

McCain's Campaign Failed, Because....

The right hand didn't know what the right hand was doing?

Take it from Charles Krauthammer: Sarah Palin was a huge mistake.

Palin was a mistake ("near suicidal," I wrote on the day of her selection) because she completely undercut McCain's principal case against Obama: his inexperience and unreadiness to lead. And her nomination not only intellectually undermined the readiness argument. It also changed the election dynamic by shifting attention, for days on end, to Palin's preparedness, fitness and experience -- and away from Obama's.

McCain thought he could steal from Obama the "change" issue by running a Two Mavericks campaign. A fool's errand from the very beginning. It defied logic for the incumbent-party candidate to try to take "change" away from the opposition. Election Day exit polls bore that out with a vengeance. Voters seeking the "change candidate" went 89 to 9 for Obama.

No, take it from Pat Buchanan: Sarah Palin is our hero and savior, and perhaps the second coming of, er, Reagan?

Yet by Sept. 10, McCain, thanks to Sarah Palin, whose selection had proven a sensation, had come from eight points behind to take the lead, and Joe Biden was wailing that maybe Hillary would have been a better choice for Obama.

I disagree with both of them, to some degree. Krauthammer exaggerates the import of Palin, and continues to overestimate the "he lacks experience" theme that by the time McCain chose Palin no longer seemed to be resonating with the public. Look at the polls before and after the convention/Palin bubble - McCain was losing on the experience argument. That's not to say it isn't a good argument or a relevant issue, but McCain's campaign apparently recognized that if they didn't introduce a "game changer" they were going to lose. McCain's choice of Palin left conservative elites like Krauthammer tied up in knots, but she was red meat to Pat Buchanan. Palin energized the religious right and helped McCain ensure their turn-out, and provided him with the ability to launch scurrilous attacks on Obama by proxy. In the weeks leading up to the election did you see Obama's support increase? No, it held steady while McCain's support increased - wavering Republicans returned to the fold.

But Palin turned out to be something well short of a net positive. Her lack of experience wasn't so much the issue as her poor performance. That, coupled with the economic crisis, hurt McCain, because it suggested that he lacked judgment. Krauthammer implies that McCain's post-convention/Palin bounce reflected a permanent advantage,

Then Lehman collapsed, and the financial system went off a cliff.

This was not just a meltdown but a panic. For an agonizing few days, there was a collapse of faith in the entire financial system - a run on banks, panicky money-market withdrawals, flights to safety, the impulse to hide one's savings under a mattress.

This did not just have the obvious effect of turning people against the incumbent party, however great or tenuous its responsibility for the crisis. It had the more profound effect of making people seek shelter in government.

Seriously? So Krauthammer is bucking the trend among right-wing pundits and is arguing that the election result gives Obama not only a mandate for massive change, but a mandate to impose socialism? He doesn't like Sarah Palin, but he's clearly been sipping her Kool-Aid. Odd as it seems to say this, for a more rational perspective (albeit one that doesn't survive past the end of the paragraph) let's turn back to Buchanan:

Then came the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the bailout of AIG, McCain’s assertion that the economy was fundamentally sound, and his panicked return to Washington to assist Bush and Hank Paulson push through a wildly unpopular bank bailout - using 700 billion in tax dollars to buy up rubbish paper the idiot bankers had put on their books.

Right up to the point of the collapse, McCain was repeating the mantra, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." Right up to the point of the collapse, his campaign was dispatching its proxies to savage Obama's economic proposals, to call Obama naive, and to ridicule comparisons between our present financial situation and the great depression. Reality intervened, and how did McCain respond? By trying to convince the people that when he said, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" he actually meant, "American workers are strong", and then fumbling a suspension of his campaign such that he simultaneously looked manipulative, disingenuous and inept.

How did Palin then hurt him? Not by being inexperienced, and certainly not in her appeal to "the base", but by appearing to undecided voters as further evidence of bad judgment - like the supposed suspension of his campaign, the Palin choice appeared at best to be a cynical manipulation that, despite the McCain camp's spin, put campaign ahead of country. McCain's defense of his choices wasn't "straight talk", and it wasn't mavericky - it was sad and disappointing. He wedded himself to G.W. not so much by his voting record and policy choices, but by his refusal to concede even obvious mistakes and his insistence that his mistakes were in fact good choices.

I'll grant that he couldn't exactly say, "I regret my choice of Sarah Palin" - and it isn't clear that he should have regrets, given that Palin largely did her job by energizing evangelical voters and social conservatives - and perhaps he had dug himself too deep a hole with statements reflecting himself as out-of-touch with the economy, but he didn't have to demean himself or to try to advance lines that, simply put, are ridiculous. Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to believe that living near Russia translates into having foreign policy experience. And if you're going to claim that somebody "understands the energy issues better than anybody I know in Washington, D.C.," you had best make sure she's not going to turn around and stick her foot into her mouth. Repeatedly.

Buchanan believes that McCain could have won the election by acting more like Palin - attacking gay rights, advancing a rigid, pro-life agenda, attacking Obama as supposedly wanting to eliminate any restrictions on abortion, smearing Obama with tales of his association with Ayers and Wright, etc. - I don't think that would have worked, and in fact it might have hurt. There's a reason that the McCain campaign happily launched that brand of attack through Palin, while trying to keep McCain himself above the fray, and my guess is that it's because their internal polling suggested that those attacks would hurt him with swing voters (not to mention demolishing the public perception that he's not hostile to abortion rights). What better evidence of this than Krauthammer's horror at Palin and everything she represents?

I personally would argue that what hurt McCain the most with swing voters was his overt efforts to appeal to the Buchananite/evangelical wing of the Republican Party. You can still easily find people who lament that they weren't able to vote for the McCain who ran in 2000, and how they wished that guy had been in the race. That guy apparently concluded early on that he couldn't win his party's nomination without making serious concessions to religious and social conservatives, and apparently later concluded (probably correctly) that it was more important to "turn out the base" - have those reliably Republican voters come out and support him on election day - than to try to hold or win over the middle. Krauthammer writes,

McCain thought he could steal from Obama the "change" issue by running a Two Mavericks campaign. A fool's errand from the very beginning.

But he misses the point that the leading factor, and perhaps the only factor, that made McCain a serious contender in the race was the distance he had historically emphasized between his own positions and those of the Republican Party. Whether you believe that to be reality or myth, that McCain - the McCain of 2000 - could legitimately declare himself a candidate of change. The reminted McCain running in 2008 could not. And he lost.
_____________
Update (via lies.com):

Premature Obituaries

I'm not personally going to declare a winner until after the election, but it's interesting to read the premature obituaries being penned about the McCain campaign and the Republican Party.

On the right, Clark Stooksbury describes the Republican Party as the "Party of Delusion", calling for an honest assessment of the reasons for the party's failure from inside, but expressing doubts about Republican-oriented conservatives' ability to do so:

A good example is this post from Robert Stacy McCain, who was engaged in some preemptive complaining about media spin of next week’s election. McCain describes the GOP as “the party of low taxes, limited government, traditional values and strong defense.” Only the part about taxes is accurate. the GOP would be more accurately described as the party of tax cuts, debt, cronyism, aggressive war and cultural resentment. The formula that worked for a couple of election cycles, but the party’s chickens have come home to roost.

In the referenced post, McCain also seems to expect that (the other) McCain will lose, but has words of criticism only for the mainstream media. Dan Larison is more in tune with Stooksbury,

Endorsing Obama is a vote of no confidence in the Republican Party, but in a weird way it is also an expression of what is probably utterly misguided hope that the Republicans will learn from the defeat and adjust to new political realities.

He seems to regard it as foolish to vote for Obama to "punish the GOP" out of hope "that there is some small chance that the GOP might change its ways", but presents no alternative. If you concede, as Larison does, that from a conservative standpoint "the GOP has failed so badly that it has made the unthinkable [a vote for Obama] mundane and ordinary", how could you possibly justify a Republican vote? While I recognize that there are third parties, and would not be surprised if Larison ends up voting for a third party candidate, the fact remains that our system is heavily biased against third parties and, in this election and into the foreseeable future, the two dominant parties will remain dominant.

On the left, Paul Krugman speculates on what the Republican Party will look like ("assuming that McCain doesn’t pull an upset"), suggesting,

the GOP that’s left after this election will probably be even further off in right field, even further out of touch with the rest of the country, than before.

If the Republican Party heeds those conservative intellectuals who call for it to reexamine its platform and priorities, that might be avoided. Or not. There's a possibility that if various conservative factions were invited to try to impose their brand of ideological purity on the Republican Party, the ensuing bloodshed would actually harm party unity, or that the bizarre, hybrid consensus version of conservatism emerging from the process would be a cure worse than the disease. Also, the branding issue would remain, as even a fruitful meeting of the party's best minds would have to overcome recent experience - "We're the Republican Party, and this time we really mean all those things we've been telling you we stand for all these years.... Trust us!"

But again, I'm not going to write the party off before it even loses, or after. Similar things could have been said about the Democratic Party many, many times over the past thirty years. They could have been said a year ago. No, actually, they have been - for most of the past year we've been hearing about how this election should be easy for the Democratic Party, how Obama can't "close the deal" and how the Democratic Party's only real strength lies in its ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If Obama weren't ahead in the polls, people would be saying them right now. If Obama loses, well, I don't have to tell you, do I.

When a party seems to be destined to lose, its pessimists expect the party to be reduced to ashes and its optimists expect a phoenix to rise, but a more likely outcome is that the party somehow manages to hobble itself together, keeps its "party faithful" in the fold, and gets the benefit both of time making people forget its past, and the other party's overreaching making them once again seem like the "lesser of two evils" to the block of "swing voters" that ultimately decides elections.

If I were to speculate as to what future path the Republican Party might take that would help keep it in the minority, at risk of trying to get rich by overestimating the intelligence of our nation's people, it would be the path endorsed by Robert Stacy McCain, who offers an unabashed "defense of ignorance". For example, McCain argues,

Palin's honest ignorance of presidential-level issues was held up as evidence that she is, or was, unprepared for the vice-presidency - as if years of studying such issues were in itself qualification for the office. Evidence contradicts this idea.

Even if we assume that "evidence" contradicts the idea that years of serious study of foreign policy better qualify somebody to serve as Vice President, that does not automatically mean that foreign policy ignorance is an equal qualification to foreign policy study, let alone make ignorance a qualification for the job. And it's more than being unschooled - somebody who has lived a lifetime demonstrating disinterested in a particular subject, to the point that in her forties she is described by her supporters as "ignorant", is unlikely to ever achieve proficiency. Is it possible? Sure, but that's a gamble. McCain's observation that Palin is "a very popular and for all I know a very good governor" is fascinating - before urging the party to jump on her bandwagon, might it not make sense for him to learn enough about her that he doesn't have to qualify his endorsement of her record?

Sarah Palin is extraordinarily shrewd and is a natural as a politician. She figured out early on that some people on the McCain campaign are profoundly incompetent (hello, Tucker Bounds) and that other people on the McCain campaign are selfish and arrogant beyond words (you know who you are, sweetheart).

So if you can identify Tucker Bounds - this Tucker Bounds - and Michael Goldfarb - this Michael Goldfarb - as less than the best, you're "shrewd"? That seems like a pretty low bar - as low as the ground level bar set for Palin in the Vice Presidential debate. So really, what's the reason McCain likes (the other) McCain's pick so much?

Sarah's shortcomings on Aug. 29 have been rapidly remedied, and by 2011 could be remedied entirely. Considering that she is the strongest, most viable alternative to Jeb Bush, I would suggest that some of her conservative critics should try to befriend her, and not merely join the sneering snobs.

The only other choice being Jeb Bush, and the Bush brand having been burned so badly by his brother that, despite his having what appear to be far superior credentials, experience, intellect and interest in national and international affairs, you should saddle up the unknown horse and hope for the best?

Truly, J.S. McCain has a limited memory if he believes that the presidential nominee or eventual president can be spotted four years out. The Republican party doesn't have to hope, so much as it should expect new leadership to emerge over the next four years. If Palin turns out to be the best of the bunch, without wishing to caricature her, diminish her accomplishments, or underestimate her political skills and charisma, the party has a lot to worry about... assuming it loses on Tuesday.

But again, the election ain't over 'till it's over.

"If Only Those Idiots Treated Our Ideas With Respect"

Mixing common sense with nonsense, Douglas MacKinnon warns, Don’t Count Him Out Yet, "John McCain can still win." Well, no kidding.

In pointing to things that can drag Obama down, MacKinnon presents an interesting exercise in contrasts. Having recently written, GOP unfairly branded racist, lamenting the suggestion that the GOP might play to racial prejudices, he now argues,

Finally, the ugly side of this equation. Race is going to be a factor in this election. How much, no one knows. A New York Times/CBS News poll gave some indication when it found out that “one-third of voters said they knew someone who would not vote for Mr. Obama because he is black.”

It is unfair to assume in advance that a campaign is going to take a particular political low road, even factoring in history, and it's certainly unfair to work from the assumption that most or all GOP supporters are racist or sympathetic to racism. But if you're going to concede that one third of voters aren't going to vote for Obama because he's black, you don't have to spend much time scrutinizing the polls to know where those votes are flowing. The fact that McCain has largely stayed away from race issues does not mean that there aren't people at other levels of the state and local party, or people who enjoy a national audience who informally align themselves with the party, who are doing their utmost to depict Obama as the scary, dark-skinned, supposedly Muslim "other".

I don't happen to think that the election is going to suddenly swing to McCain because voters have a sudden revelation that, <gasp>, Obama's black. I suspect that most of the 1/3 of voters MacKinnon describes have already made up their mind to vote for somebody other than Obama, and advice pollsters accordingly. I doubt that there are more than a tiny number of people who think that they are voting on the issues but will decide, upon entering the voting booth, that they're really part of that 1/3. The rest of us will decide out votes on other issues.

MacKinnon doesn't like unfair stereotypes of Republicans, but....

Beyond today’s experience argument, why do Democrats sometimes lose when all indications are that they will coast to victory? One reason that has gained traction in certain quarters is that the people who control the Republican Party understand and respect their opponents. Republicans think Democrats are wrong, but Democrats think Republicans are stupid, and that’s why Democrats lose.

Oh, really? So if I listen to the speeches McCain and Palin gave at the national convention, I'll hear their deep respect for the Democratic party and its ideas?¹ If I flip on talk radio, I'll hear Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage sensitively analyze the issues of the day with great respect for the positions of Democrats? No, wait, if I listen to the pundits and analysts who pen best sellers directed at Republican readers and read their books, I won't find their ideas exemplified by titles like "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", "Obama Nation" or "Liberal Fascism"? Or "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans"?

Spare me.

The leading difference is that the GOP manages to gin up its base with fantasies of a "liberal elite" that is plotting to "take away your rights" (or, in the case of gay marriage, abortion or birth control, give you rights or protect the rights you have), an approach that is perhaps exemplified by MacKinnon's, "They think we're stupid" line.² But what you're seeing there isn't Democrats condescending to Republican voters or treating them like they're stupid. And it's certainly not a demonstration of Republican respect for the ideas and values of the Democratic Party.
________________
1. Some have suggested that the Republican Party's past anti-intellectual stances are serving to both undermine conservatism and marginalize conservative intellectuals.

2. There are similar caricatures that some Democrats attempt to present to excite their base, but for a variety of reasons they're much more scattershot and much less effective.

Brooks Somehow Missed the Joke

David Brooks argues that the Republican Party engaged in class warfare, eroding its support among intellectuals:

[O]ver the past few decades, the Republican Party has driven away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts. This expulsion has had many causes. But the big one is this: Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare. Democrats kept nominating coastal pointy-heads like Michael Dukakis so Republicans attacked coastal pointy-heads.

* * *

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.

The result, as Brooks sees it?

The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

* * *

And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away.

I think Brooks has it wrong. The Republican Party isn't declining because it has alienated intellectuals. It's declining due to a combination of bad policy decisions and its void of new ideas. That's why you have an array of Republicans suggesting that "You have to let the party die in order to save it", as if it will arise like a phoenix once it is reduced to ash.

That perhaps also reflects this nation's unfortunate tendency to start by supporting a party, embracing the party label as a matter of personal identity, and deciding from there that we support its agenda. If we even think about its agenda. It takes a great shock to wake people up to the idea that their political party doesn't actually have their best interests at heart, even though it seems obvious that the other party is full of corrupt, self-serving slaves to special interests.

As I see it, the set of elites that gained control of the Republican Party, and who foisted their policies upon the nation for the past eight years, have managed to convince a great many conservatives that the modern Republican party is largely not conservative, and has embraced one bad policy after another. Are you a fiscal conservative? How can you not choke on the manner in which the Bush Administration has blown the budget? A foreign policy conservative? How do you feel, then, about aggressive overseas military interventionism and the positioning of the U.S. as world policeman in a never-ending "war on terror"? Are you a social or religious conservative? What did the Bush Administration actually deliver on social issues, despite using them as wedge issues to "inspire the base" in every recent national election? Are you a "club for growth" type who cares about little beyond enriching yourself and eliminating taxes on inherited wealth? Somehow I don't think getting a capital gains tax cut's your hot button issue this week....

The conservative intelligentsia was always in on the joke. They voted for the Republican Party because they thought that Republican policies would best advance their interests, and they understood that the party had to string "the base" along in order to gain and hold power. The Republican party is losing their support because it has proved itself unfit to rule. (Which isn't necessarily to say that the alternative is better, but we're way past the point where "holding the course" seems like a credible response to the problems facing this nation.)

As for losing the base, the "working class" - a term elites use to describe blue collar "red state" voters - has faced a lot of adversity during the years of the so-called "Bush Boom". Then there was the housing bubble - okay, but that mostly affected other people, and most Americans were ready to ride that one out. Then there was the financial industry meltdown and a promise of even harder times, but not to worry - a bailout is on the way... for bankers. The weird thing about getting people to worry about social issues is that they have plenty of time and energy for it when times are good, but when the economy melts down attentions start to shift toward substantive political and economic issues. Right now, that's bad for the Republican Party.

I could have saved a lot of typing and coopted Clinton. Attention, David Brooks: It's the economy, stupid!

They Say That Like It's a Surprise....

The New York Times says,

Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.

It is no surprise that there are Republicans who want to run an honorable campaign. If anything should be a surprise, given the smears run against him in 2000, it's that McCain isn't one of them.

Saving The Party Without Ideas

David Frum has a lengthy opinion piece in the New York Times, arguing that economic inequality is not good for the Republican Party. For the most part, he's channeling his inner David Brooks - sharing superficial caricatures of American life, with a shallow analysis of what lies beneath.

I live in Washington, in a neighborhood that is home to lawyers, political consultants, television personalities and the chief executive of the TIAA-CREF pension fund. Not exactly an abode of the superrich, but the kind of neighborhood where almost nobody does her own yardwork or vacuums his own floor. Children’s birthday parties feature rented moon bounces or hired magicians. The local grocery stores offer elegant precooked dinners of salmon, duck and artichoke ravioli.

Right. And, I'm sure, it sells arugula. Let there be no doubt, by any definition other than (perhaps) his own, David Frum is among the "elite".

After noting that a mere four miles away, there's a neighborhood struggling with poverty, he depicts D.C. as an unequal nation where, increasingly, everybody votes Democratic:

As a general rule, the more unequal a place is, the more Democratic; the more equal, the more Republican.

David Frum grew up in Canada. I recognize that he was from a wealthy family and had a famous parent, but I still find it interesting that somebody with roots in Canada would make this type of generalization. Oh, you can point to the fact that Canadians are relatively socially conservative, and can even argue that their government is presently led by the Conservative Party. Yet the "big government" programs and "social safety net" that Frum would be among the first to denounce are untouchable.

My fellow conservatives and Republicans have tended not to worry very much about the widening of income inequalities. As long as there exists equality of opportunity - as long as everybody’s income is rising - who cares if some people get rich faster than others? Societies that try too hard to enforce equality deny important freedoms and inhibit wealth-creating enterprise. Individuals who worry overmuch about inequality can succumb to life-distorting envy and resentment.

Yet which group is most likely to feel that life-distorting envy and resentment. Did you guess, the already successful people just below Frum's class of wealth, who aspire to join it?

In fact, a poll of New Yorkers found that those who earned more than $200,000 a year were the most likely of any income group to agree that "seeing other people with money" makes them feel poor.

Perhaps due to his Canadian upbringing, Frum seems not to appreciate this nation's embrace of the Horatio Alger myth. In my opinion, the people he laments as turning away from the Republican Party aren't doing so out of envy, save perhaps for a few who want to move into his neighborhood.

What you see in nations like Canada and England is how a socially conservative population can reject what Frum urges us to regard as an inherently conservative view of the role of government. People like Frum assume that social conservatism automatically translates into economic conservatism. More cynical pundits and politicians flip that around - they exploit wedge issues to make voters believe that if they don't vote Republican they will end up with a government that will undermine their social values.

That latter group has it right - after all, if "red state" conservatives were voting based on conservative economic principles, we wouldn't be experiencing a series of close elections seemingly decided by those "wedge issues" - immigration, anti-gay ballot initiatives, etc. Despite its comparative economic homogeneity, this does not work as well in a nation like Canada, as due to the demographics of that country it seems to be harder to scare Canadians about the "other" - gay people, arugula-eating pro-choicers, scary foreigners, immigrants who are "trying to take our jobs".... Without those wedge issues, it's a lot harder to get people to vote against what they see as their economic interest.

Note that I'm not condescending to Canadians by telling them what their economic interests are, and thus suggesting how they should vote. I'm observing the reality. Canadians are not about to vote to significantly reduce or eliminate their national health plan, as they know it's not in their best interest. The Conservative Party knows that whatever social wedge issues it attempts to raise, it's not going to survive an election cycle if Canadians believe it will end Medicare. This type of issue is less pronounced in the U.S., although there seems to be a deep-seated Republican concern that a successful national health care system would have a similar effect here - people would reject an economic agenda that sought to undermine the program that is effective in providing them with healthcare.

Frum describes the argument over same-sex marriage as a "distraction", and yes it's a distraction from debate of economic issues. But it's a distraction that has been introduced and fostered by the Republican Party and that has benefited the Republican Party. Given all the magic shows he has surely seen while taking his kids to parties in his neighborhood, surely Frum recognizes the purpose of that sleight of hand - it's to keep people from noticing what the other hand is doing. Needless to say, that's not because the Republican Party believes that the public will support its agenda.

Frum also demonstrates an odd understanding of egalitarianism:

To witness the slow-motion withering of the G.O.P., drive a little farther west into the Washington metropolitan area, to Prince William County. Here is exurban America in all its fresh paint: vast tracts of inexpensive homes, schools built to the latest design, roads still black in their virgin asphalt.

Whether in Virginia, Missouri or Illinois, there are no more egalitarian and no more Republican places in the United States than these exurbs. The rich shun them, and the poor can find no easy foothold, but the middle-income, middle-educated, white married parents who form the backbone of the G.O.P. are drawn to them as if to a refuge.

Yes... what better demonstrates a classless society with equal access to power, influence, and wealth than a community the poor can't afford to enter, and which the rich view as far beneath them.

In classic "What's the Matter with Kansas" style, Frum suggests that these voters are turning away from the Republican Party due to lax Republican immigration policy, despite his belief that they are enriched by low-cost immigrant labor, speculating that they may resent paying "the higher local tax bills that can result from immigration." But if that's the reason, why wouldn't they be turning to a conservative, anti-immigration party or candidate instead of the Democratic Party?

It may be true, as Frum suggests, that the Republican Party would benefit from entering into the health care debate with meaningful proposals that could reign in inflation, and he describes some of the weak tea that a few within the Republican Party hold up as solutions, but he needs to come to terms with the fact that the primary reason that the Republican Party is terrified to enter the debate is that other than its usual scare tactics - it's "socialism", "a government bureaucrat will choose your doctor", etc. - their ideas are inferior.

And at the end of the day, whatever the merits of Frum's brand of economic conservatism, isn't that the problem? He is aligned with a party that, as evidenced by the last eight years of mismanagement, has no real interest in pursuing conservative economic policies. Their public lip service to economic conservatism is paper thin, and they aren't prepared to debate the issues. Frum dogmatically adheres to the view that the Republican Party could produce some compelling ideas, but for some reason just hasn't gotten around to doing so. The evidence suggests that he's waiting for a magic trick that will never come - what you see is what you get.

The Republican Party is now the party of distracting wedge issues, not the party of ideas. And you don't have to look past the hollow speeches at the Republican National Convention to know, that's not about to change. When Frum writes,

The prevailing Republican view - “of course government always fails, what do you expect it to do?” - is not what this slice of America expects to hear from the people asking to be entrusted with the government.

He needs to acknowledge that it's not only that we're expected to vote for a party that takes that view, it's also that they now have a very long record of failure.

Yes, as Frum suggests, the Republican Party is threatened by growing inequality, diminished opportunity, and middle class wage stagnation. As is the Democratic Party. As is the nation. Yes, it would be nice if we could move into a real debate about economic issues, and how to place the middle class on firmer economic ground. But right now there's an election going on and, as McCain's campaign will be the first to tell you, this election is not about issues. So we'll save that debate for another day.

Brooks Makes Funny About Palin

As you may recall, David Brooks doesn't make factual errors - he makes jokes. And today's column has some real side-splitters about Sarah Palin:

McCain was meeting a woman who risked her career taking on the corrupt Republican establishment in her own state, who twice defeated the oil companies, who made mortal enemies of the two people McCain has always held up as the carriers of the pork-barrel disease: Young and Stevens.

The reality? When she needed him politically, Stevens endorsed Palin for governor. And now?

They came together this summer for a joint press conference on energy initiatives. Both support drilling in ANWR, and Stevens has lent tacit support for Palin's effort to build and pay for a natural gas pipeline through Alaska.

And Stevens went out of his way to compliment Palin this summer in interviews, saying she was on the right track as governor, praising her plans to handle the state's energy crisis and telling Alaskans she'd make a good vice presidential pick for McCain.

"People come up and ask me what is she like and how is she doing," he said. "I've been asked that, and I've told them I think she would be a good vice president."

With enemies like that, who needs friends?

And she has experienced more of typical American life than either McCain or his opponent.

Because "the rest of us" are former beauty pageant contestants who love nothin' better than a steamin' bowl of moose stew?

Off the printed page, Brooks offers even more rip-roaring fun:

She's evangelical, but she's pretty progressive on gay and lesbian issues.

We know she opposes gay marriage and domestic partnership benefits for gays, but unless we're to assume that Brooks views those positions as progressive... what's he talking about? (Perhaps its that "she's not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay", whatever that means.)

She's for drilling in ANWR, but she talks about global warming quite a lot."

Well, that may be true... but what is she saying?

Leaving his "jokes" aside, Brooks shares this concern about John McCain:

My worry about Palin is that she shares McCain’s primary weakness — that she has a tendency to substitute a moral philosophy for a political philosophy.

* * *

McCain is certainly capable of practicing the politics of compromise and coalition-building. He engineered a complex immigration bill with Ted Kennedy and global warming legislation with Joe Lieberman. But if you are going to lead a vast administration as president, it really helps to have a clearly defined governing philosophy, a conscious sense of what government should and shouldn’t do, a set of communicable priorities.

* * *

On top of [the problems in the Republican Party], he will have his own freewheeling qualities: a restless, thrill-seeking personality, a tendency to personalize issues, a tendency to lead life as a string of virtuous crusades.

He really needs someone to impose a policy structure on his moral intuitions.

But take a step back for a moment. If Palin's lack of a sound political philosophy should disqualify her from being Vice President, how can Brooks possibly be endorsing McCain for the top job? Also, what are we supposed to make of this:

There simply aren’t enough Republican experts left to staff an administration, so he will have to throw together a hodgepodge with independents and Democrats.

Does Brooks mean that, their having held the executive branch for 20 of the past 28 years, he sees the Republicans as having proved that there's hardly a competent manager among them? That they've run through the entire roster of potential managers, with one after another proving inept and incompetent? I would love to hear more.

Some "GOP Operatives" Are... Stupid

The proposed smear:

Privately, some Republicans say they also hope to raise doubts about Obama's patriotism. McCain's TV ads stress his five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. One GOP operative, speaking on condition of anonymity, said strategists have proposed an ad picturing a series of Democratic politicians, all but one - Obama - wearing a U.S. flag pin.

"Here's the tagline: What's he got against the American flag?" the operative said.

Right.... Because there's no way that could possibly backfire on McCain.

One wonders... is this idea coming from the same moron who sent Jack Kingston out to whinge about the flag pin issue? Because there, also, we apparently weren't supposed to notice that Jack Kingston doesn't wear a flag pin?

The Gerson War On Reality

Michael Gerson's in a tizzy because Hillary Clinton has accused the Republican Party of "conducting a 'war on science.'" He quickly names three civil servants, one of whom earned his position under Clinton and another of whom received his two most recent promotions under Carter (Chief of the Laboratory of Immunoregulation for the NIH) and Reagan (Director of NIAID), whom he claims to have stellar scientific records.

Um... wow? Way to defend (either) Bush?

And, because we haven't had enough of this type of mindlessness lately,

Any ethical question about the destruction of human embryos to harvest their cells is dismissed as "theological" and thus illegitimate.

Okay... by whom? Where and when? Should we hold our breath waiting for your answer?

Any practical concern about the content of government sex-education curricula is labeled "anti-science."

I didn't realize that it was "anti-science" to have practical concerns over the documented failure of "abstinence only" sex education, but there you go. Now if your concern is that there's scientific content in sex education, and you prefer to omit that science from sex education programs in favor of the discredited theory that "abstinence-only education" works? Now that would be anti-science.

That "abstinence only" agenda was anti-science even before "abstinence-only" education was discredited, as there was never any data to support "abstinence-only" education as a viable alternative. You want to talk scientific ethics? How about the Bush Administration's using our nation's schoolchildren as lab rats for that failed social science experiment? May I please at least see the "informed consent" forms?

Liberal views are "objective" while traditional moral convictions are "biased."

Surely even Gerson can construct a better straw man than that.

Public scrutiny of scientific practices is "politicizing" important decisions.

Oh... I guess not.

These arguments are seriously made, but they are not to be taken seriously.

An ambiguous reference. If he means, "The fake arguments I'm presently raising," for once he's right on the money.

And of course we devolve into this type of claptrap, popular with dishonest right-wingers:

Without a firm, morally grounded belief in equality, liberalism has been led down some dark paths. The old, progressive eugenics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries involved widespread sterilization of the mentally disabled as a form of social hygiene.

We can start by pointing out that just because a historic group called itself "progressive" and that's the new preferred term in a lot of circles for the term, "liberal", doesn't mean the two are one and the same. Further, if Gerson had any idea what he was talking about, he would understand that when eugenics movements were at their peak they were broadly embraced by society, even by people he would have to grudgingly concede were "conservatives".

Gerson argues that parents' decisions to abort Down syndrome babies

highlights a real conflict, a war within liberalism between the idea of unrestricted science in the cause of health and the principle that all men are created equal - between humanitarianism and egalitarianism.

Yet he doesn't explain how. Do you suppose he has evidence that parents who self-classify as conservatives don't choose abortion when they learn that they are expecting a Down syndrome child? Well, he says, "In America, the lives of about nine of 10 children with Down syndrome are ended before birth." So either Gerson has to admit that American conservatives are a big part of what he describes as the problem, or argue that significantly less than 10% of Americans are "conservative."

I guess there's one more possibility: He could be arguing that while liberals fret over the conflict between humanitarianism and egalitarianism, conservatives are skipping the debate and heading straight to Planned Parenthood.

Nazism largely discredited the old eugenics. But a new eugenics - the eugenics of genetic screening and abortion, the eugenics of genetic selection in the process of in vitro fertilization - is alive and well. Its advocates contend that the new eugenics is superior because it is voluntary instead of compulsory, and unrelated to race.

Posing some questions to Mr. Gerson:

Who are these "advocates"? Where can I find these statements you attribute to them? Do they truly compare "genetic selection in the process of in vitro fertilization" to Nazi-style eugenics? Oh, I know, hyperbole - nobody is really making such a comparison or statement. So let's ask a question that ignores your attempt to conflate genetic screening with Nazism. You're not claiming that these "advocates" are liberal - what are their politics? And the people paying for these services - people who are wealthy enough to afford cutting edge infertility treatment and genetic testing - what are their politics?

I'm also curious as to how you distinguish in vitro fertilization involving genetic testing from the traditional variety. Either way, a number of eggs are fertilized for implantation, but most of those fertilized eggs are discarded. The difference, then, is that with genetic screening certain birth defects are eliminated, which should significantly reduce the abortion rate.

After that rhetorical exercise, I am left with three obvious questions for Mr. Gerson:

• Are you opposed to all in vitro fertilization, given that with or without genetic testing the number of viable embryos that are not implanted are roughly equal?
• Are you stating that it's more "moral" to forego genetic screening and discard a healthy, viable embryo than it is to employ genetic screening and improve the chances of a genetically normal child? (That's a subject ripe for debate - I'm just trying to figure out if you're trying to engage us in that debate or, as seems to be the case, foreclose it by suggesting that anybody who would engage in genetic screening is tantamount to a Nazi eugenicist.)
• Leaving aside for the moment the psychological and medical toll on an expectant mother, do you believe that there's no difference between having an embryo expire without ever being implanted and having a fetus aborted in the first or second trimester - and if you do see a difference, unless you believe the former is worse, why are you suggesting that doctors who help avoid that second outcome are tantamount to Nazi eugenicists?

Gerson clarifies,

The point here is not to catch liberalism in an inconsistency.

Well, that's probably for the best. Because if that were the point, Gerson would look even more the fool.

Meanwhile, Gerson might benefit from brushing up on the non-scientific positions taken by the Bush Administration, even while he was hacking away as a speechwriter for G.W., on such topics as sex education, global warming, "intelligent design", misrepresentation of the viability of stem cell lines, etc. Because if he really wants to make the case that Republicans care about science, his former paymasters have a lot of explaining to do.

The Contract On America, Book II

Via Dan Larison, I learn that Newt Gingrich is back (again). Not that he really went away. And he has some really bad ideas.

Newt Gingrich is back to haunt us again, this time offering up nine panderific ideas that reek of the desperation of a party with no ideas–and he’s supposed to be one of the idea men of this gang! My favourite has to be this one:

Introduce a “more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill” as a replacement for the Warner-Lieberman “tax and trade” bill…

This will also be known as the No Trade-Offs/Free Lunch Act of 2008. Gingrich forgot to mention introducing the bill to protect endangered unicorns.

When I read that (the quote he presented, not the quip that followed) my reaction was, "Okay, he's joking or he's giving us a sarcastic summary of Newt Gingrich's actual proposal. But no.... Newt's actually proposing "a 'more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill'".