After the Future

Cool Debate

A couple of quick thoughts: No clear winner, but I think Obama helped himself a little more.  And if his poll trajectory is, in fact, up and hers is down, that's good enough for him.  He didn't have to score big. Clinton came across very well.  I don't think she hurt herself, but I'm not sure that she did anything to stop Obama's momentum. We'll see come Tuesday.

I hope this debate satisfies all those who have been complaining that there hasn't been enough policy substance in the debates. I found it riveting, but I doubt it changed many people's minds. If anything it may have favored Obama because he, though he doesn't present himself primarily as a wonk, showed he could more than hold his own in a wonk-off with the Queen of Wonks.

So in the end, it comes down to where people stand on Iraq (Obama's best line:"I want to end the mindset that got us into the war in the first place."), and where people stand on transformational leadership vs. nuts and bolts program pushing.  Health care, in my opinion, was a wash between them. It seems to me every body is either automatically covered as in a singlepayer system, or if you have to buy in, you cannot be forced. That's not my idea of "universal," and it comes across as nanny-statish. If single payer with automatic coverage isn't a political possibility, then the most important thing is to control costs and keep premiums affordable and available to anybody who wants insurance regardless of preexisting conditions. Both plans seek to do that, and that's all that matters.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how forcing people to buy is going to wash politically in a society still so smitten by Libertarian thinking. 

On immigration, do Democrats care about driver's licenses vs. no driver's licenses?  I don't. Sounds like something Republicans obsess about. It was interesting that Obama was reaching out to the Latinos while Clinton seemed to be throwing the Latinos under the bus in reaching out to blacks.  I think that helps Obama more than it helps Clinton, because the black vote has left the dock and is sailing for Obamaland, and it isn't coming back. I think the Latino vote is more volatile, and Hillary hurt herself with the Latinos. I doubt, though, that Ugly Betty will be rescinding her endorsement.

I think Hillary got of a good line about it taking a Clinton to clean up the messes made by Bush, except that it has little relation to reality.  Bill did little to pursue Bush 1 culpability in Iran Contra and a host of other shady dealings, especially in the Middle East.  And I don't know that Obama will aggressively pursue investigations into Bush 2 era crimes, but we can be relatively certain that Hillary won't, what with Bill and Bush 1 being such buds and all.

I think that Obama helped himself with his humor, and both laugh lines were at Republican expense. I think he came across as serious, gracious, confident, and at ease. I'm sure Clinton supporters feel the same way about their candidate.  But at this point it's  all about momentum going into next Tuesday, who's got it, and who don't.  You've got to give the edge to Obama there. And another thing is clear--Obama is growing as a candidate, because this was his best debate. Clinton was her normal, sure-footed self, but Obama seems like the candidate on the move.

Both these candidates look as though they are in a completely different league than the GOP candidates, but that doesn't mean that's the way America will look at them  in November. We know that the Republicans will do everything they can to frighten the politically immature from taking the chance with either of these candidates. They look good now, but enough doubt will be cast on them by one or another kind of swiftboating, and that will churn up the underlying discomfort lying dormant in so many Americans about voting for a woman or a black man.  Better to to take the safer course, they will think to themselves, and vote for a Republican again.

That's my fear. I hope it's unfounded or at least that it's not something that will affect a majority of Americans. The last seven years, though, have taught me not ever to underestimate the fear factor. I'd like to believe that Americans have learned their lesson, but I wouldn't bet my house on it. Nevertheless, I'm feeling optimistic at the moment, and for now at least I choose not to think about the specter of Republican thuggery looming on the horizon.

Oh, Yeah. Bush Is Still in Office

For another year. Greenwald regarding Mukasey's testimony yesterday:

None of what he said yesterday is extraordinary, despite how radical and jarring it is. Mukasey repeatedly insisted that even his most lawlessness-endorsing views are within our political mainstream, and he's right about that. It's now been seven years that our country has functioned under the radical executive power theories of the Bush administration, which include the right of the President to break the law. Congress long ago decided it would do nothing about any of it, would acquiesce to it, and thus -- as was predictable and predicted -- it has all become normalized.

Yesterday's hearing was the most potent illustration we've seen of that normalization. But it was potent not because anything happened yesterday, but precisely because nothing did happen -- and nothing will.

All day long, in response to Mukasey's insistence that patent illegalities were legal, that Congress was basically powerless, and that the administration has no obligation to disclose anything to Congress (and will not), Senators would respond with impotent comments such as: "Well, I'd like to note my disagreement and ask you to re-consider" or "I'm disappointed with your answer and was hoping you would say something different" or "If that's your position, we'll be discussing this again at another point." They were supplicants pleading for some consideration, almost out of a sense of mercy, and both they and Mukasey knew it.

Mukasey can go and casually tell them to their faces that the President has the right to violate their laws and that Congress has no power to do anything about it. And nothing is going to happen. And everyone -- the Senators, Bush officials, the country -- knows that nothing is going to happen. There is nothing too extreme that Mukasey could say to those Senators that would prompt any consequences greater than some sighing and sorrowful expressions of disapproval. We now live in a country where the President -- and those acting at his behest (see Lewis Libby, AT&T, and Verizon)-- have the power to break the law and ignore Congress and every other aspect of government, and can do so with impunity. . . .

I long ago stopped blaming the Bush administration -- at least exclusively -- for what has happened to our political system. They were responsible in the first instance, but the rest of the country's institutions -- its media, its Congress, the "opposition" party, even the courts -- all allowed it to happen, choosing to do nothing -- or to endorse it -- once it all began to be disclosed. It wouldn't have surprised the Founders that we would have corrupt and lawbreaking political leaders, including in the White House. The idea was that there would be numerous checks on that corruption. But when those other institutions fail, or are complicit, the fault is collective.

Thanks, Chuck and Diane:

"I do believe he will be a truly nonpolitical, nonpartisan attorney general; that he will make his views very clear; and that, once he has the opportunity to do the evaluation he believes he needs on waterboarding, he will be willing to come before the Judiciary Committee and express his views comprehensively and definitively," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, one of the six who voted with the majority for confirmation.

Added Schumer, Mukasey's chief Democratic patron:

"No one questions that Judge Mukasey would do much to turn around the Justice Department and much to remove the stench of politics from this vital institution." . . .

Besides Schumer and Feinstein, Democrats voting to confirm Mukasey were: Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper of Delaware, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Of the Senate's two independents, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted for confirmation and Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted against.

Clinton and Obama didn't vote, but both said they were against the nomination. How reassuring.

Digby:

Kelli Arena says the good news is that this is a very cordial hearing, without the "apoplectic fits" one is accustomed to from this committee. I don't think Kelli has ever heard about the "banality of evil."

Obama's Critics to the Left

I see that Nader has announced that now Edwards is out, he might consider throwing his hat in the ring.  He considers Obama to be too mediocre a candidate and is disappointed that someone with his community-organizing background is not a more articulate voice for the concerns of the poor. This has been a criticism of Obama from a lot of the people who were attracted to Edwards. They see Obama as too soft on progressive issues. They wonder if he has the spine and the toughness to fight those on the right who have no compunction about using every dirty trick in the book.  And will he fight for a progressive agenda if he reaches the White House or will he "Specter" on his supporters--say all the right things, then cave?

So I understand where they're coming from. And I've wondered if I myself have not been seduced by Obama only inevitably to be disappointed. There have been times when I've thought Obama's message of unity a naive message of capitulation to the uncompromising hard right. I understand why Clinton supporters don't buy into his leadership style, and why they hope he has a glass jaw they can get a shot at to knock him out. 

But I don't think that anymore. I'm rather grateful for the Clintons' rough tactics, because they have given Obama the opportunity to show that he is not just some mushy idealist. He's got some toughness, and he's stylish rather than brutish in the way he displays it. As I've written here, and as Obama clearly recognizes, if he can't handle the Clintons, he won't be able to handle the really serious nastiness to come in the Fall.  Obama has to show he has some gristle and that he's willing to fight. But he has to fight fair, and he has always to be reaching out to the soft middle with the objective to make them feel comfortable about leaning left after having for so many years leaned right.

And so far I think he's done admirably well in both showing some fight without becoming a brute. So while I'm by no means 100% certain, I am confident that what my gut tells me about Obama is trustworthy and his long-term tranformational strategy plausible. And that being being the case, here's what I would say to the people to Obama's left who see him as too moderate, who prefer Edwards' hot, populist style to Obama's cool style, or who would vote for Nader because they see the Democratic Party as hopelessly complicit in the corrupted Beltway corporate system:  Politics is not about being ideologically pure--there is a proto-Jacobinism in that mindset; it's about taking whatever the next possible step forward might be--there's a healthy Burkean principled realism in that mindset. And our job as voters is to pick the person we think has the best chance of moving us forward. Sometimes you have to vote for someone who only offers to slow down the regression, i.e., Kerry in 2004.  But in this cycle Obama offers a rare opportunity to move forward.

But before developing that argument,  I'd like to preface it with few thoughts on Edwards' failed candidacy. I wanted to like Edwards, but there was something missing. The rhetoric and the person didn't fit well together. Listening to his speeches is a different experience from listening to Obama's. Edwards' speeches had energy, but nevertheless seemed scripted and formulaic. Not bad, not great. Animated, yet stale.  And then last week I read this criticism by Russ Feingold that brought the causes of my dissatisfaction with Edwards into clearer focus. When asked his opinion about the Democratic presidential candidates, he had this to say about Edwards:

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

Feingold really doesn't like Edwards, and Feingold as one of the few truly principled left politicians is someone any left-leaning American has to listen to. He sees Edwards as the opportunist so many perceive Hillary to be. It looks as if Edwards' populism was mainly a calculation: he saw that the slot to the left of Obama was open, and so he'd occupy that niche in the hopes of capturing the activist progressive core. So there is a question about how much of Edwards' campaign rhetoric was tactical and how much was rooted in what he really believed. As with everyone, it's a mix, but more tactics than sincerity might account for the false note I always found in his rhetoric. He was never well cast for the role of son-of-millworker populist to begin with, and his rhetorical style did little to help him to overcome that fundamental disadvantage.

But let's allow that he was 90% sincere, his positioning himself in that slot to the left of Obama just didn't work because the activist progressive core has no electoral heft. Anybody who campaigns from that slot in the political spectrum cannot win national office. That's just reality. Anybody who insists that Obama take explicit positions on issues farther to the left than he has done is basically asking him to commit political suicide. That's why Nader's criticisms seem sanctimonious and stupid. That doesn't mean that a progressive candidate is doomed to split the difference with the idiocies of the right; it does mean that his effectiveness in the long run depends on his having successfully wooed the malleable middle.

Winning is one thing, but you cannot accomplish anything good unless you are a leader a significant majority of the electorate trusts, and so the first step for Obama is to earn that trust. In a democracy, nothing substantively positive is possible without it. Trust is the foundation that must be laid if his more ambitious goal for effecting transformative change is even remotely a possibility. The progressive left's discomfort with Obama's comparison of himself last week with Reagan was remarkably obtuse. He was not telegraphing that he was a closet conservative, but that he is serious about serious change, and that he has the potential to effect it in a way that no one else on the scene does. He can't do it without first building a substantive national consensus.  He cannot fight the hard right unless he has broad support to do so.

Can he do it? I don't know, but right now he is doing something rather remarkable that no other candidate in my adult memory has done. He stands clearly left of center on the issues, and he's attracting conservatives and moderates who have become disgusted with what the Republican Party has become. These Republican-leaning moderates are vulnerable to conversion, but while they may be willing to sit in Obama's church pews, they will never sit in Clinton's. She irritates them, and I just don't see her as capable of ever earning their trust, much less their affection. Clinton is on a track for a 51% approval rating at best; Obama has the potential for a 60% or better.

Obama will never win over the stalwart core of movement conservatism, but if he can earn the trust of independents and moderate conservatives, if he can win over the Richard Cizek and Rick Warren evangelicals, if he can substitute a renewed vision of the common good, a "We" politics for the fragmenting Libertarian "Me" politics that has poisoned centrist political thinking since 1980, he will indeed have become the transformative candidate he aspires to be.

Kerry could never have done this in 2004. Bill Clinton didn't do in the 90s and Hillary has no chance of doing it now. You have to be tone deaf or blinded by cynicism not to see that Obama has a potential that the others do not. That there is a good chance he may fail to realize this potential is a risk I'm willing to take. I'm willing to vote for the possibility of a real movement forward rather than the certainty of stagnation or regression that the Clintons and Republicans respectively represent. That's what being a progressive should mean. Even if the steps we take forward are baby steps, it's better to take them than than to criticize as not progressive enough the one guy who has the chance to do it.

The Clinton Co-Presidency

I've been thinking that the real importance of Bill's "energetic" interventions on behalf of Hillary has less to do with his controversial statements and more to do with a growing perception that he is running for co-president. The real 'Bill problem' might be that he is starting to turn people off to the idea of Hillary in the White House, because whatever they might feel about her, they don't want Bill in the White House.  He's not some non-descript Mr. Thatcher--he's a former president of the United States with some bones to pick, and he will not stand meekly by. Gary Wills makes that point in today's NYT:

One problem with the George W. Bush administration is that it has brought a kind of plural presidency in through the back door. Vice President Dick Cheney has run his own executive department, with its own intelligence and military operations, not open to scrutiny, as he hides behind the putative president.

No other vice president in our history has taken on so many presidential prerogatives, with so few checks. He is an example of the very thing James Wilson was trying to prevent by having one locus of authority in the executive. The attempt to escape single responsibility was perfectly exemplified when his counsel argued that Mr. Cheney was not subject to executive rules because he was also part of the legislature.

We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.

This could be a theme to be developed in Obama's favor if Hillary doesn't take steps to rein Bill in.  Is he rein-inable?  It's not about his role as 'heavy', but about whether he's controllable. He may be doing everything he does with Hillary's approval; nevertheless,  he makes Hillary look weak insofar as she is unable to tie down her loose cannon of a husband, and this could sour a lot of people who might otherwise want to vote for her.  Not sure about that, but it's something to consider.

American Folly, American Decline

From today's NYT Magazine:

Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth.

At best, America’s unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war “peace dividend” was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing — and losing — in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this post-American world.

It will take American conservatives a while to realize what opportunities have been lost because of their late 19th century understanding of global power arrangements. Their primitive, arrogant provincialism and loutish use of military power are leading inevitably to the scenario these conservatives fear most--the diminution of American power and influence. They have been outplayed, and if they were willing to trade the world's love of American ideals for its fear and respect, it's becoming clear that they've lost those as well.

It will take a while for Americans to grasp the full extent of the consequences of American stupidity and incompetence over the last eight years. But rather than cut our losses and regroup around a saner approach, we'll continue on in the Middle East for fear of looking weak, or whatever.  The world will roll its eyes and do what it has to do to move on without us. We should expect this basic continuation from Clinton, perhaps not from Obama.  But the pressures on the new president, no matter who it is, to stay the basic course will be enormous. The implacable military/industrial/congressional complex is not going to bend to one person's will, especially if he's likely to be gone in four years.

After Bush you have to wonder if the world will ever trust America again. Even if Americans elect more intelligent, forward-looking leadership, there's no guarantee such leadership will stay in place. It's not even likely. And, as suggested above, there's reason to believe that the nation's political class has not learned its lesson after the Iraq fiasco. Even if the Democrats develop a more intelligent foreign policy that relates to the world as it moves more deeply into the 21st Century, is it likely that Americans will keep the Democrats in power? It won't take much to scare them back into the arms of the Republican primitivism.

The rest of the world understands this, and the Bush presidency has alerted the world to the kind of danger a loose-cannon America poses. It is only logical that the world will now take steps to protect itself from future Bush/Cheneys. What reason has it to believe that America any longer has a trustworthy leadership role to play?  We elected foolish bullies not just once, but twice in this decade.  And we'll do it again--if we're scared into it, and we've seen how easy that is to do.

South Carolina (updates 1-6)

I'm writing this just before Obama's speech. Happy that there were no big negative surprises and that the margin of victory appears to be so large.

I haven't been reading any blog responses so far, just watching MSNBC coverage.  I'm kind of amazed that everybody (except Pat Buchanan) is convinced that Bill Clinton's race innuendo strategy has backfired. (After the Jesse Jackson remark today, any doubt about it should be dispelled. Right, Joe?) Nevertheless, I'm not convinced. I have the feeling that the commentators are getting too caught up in the moment--too much like Iowa, and like Iowa losing the big picture. As Buchanan says, Obama's share of the white vote has  been going down in each race--even Edwards beat Obama with the white Democratic vote. Eighty percent of the black vote vs. twenty-four percent of the white vote is a losing formula nationwide. Twenty-four percent of the white vote isn't going to cut it in the big states.

South Carolina doesn't mean much unless it creates momentum for Obama that will dramatically change the percentages in the  big Super Tuesday states. The one hopeful thing is that apparently Obama was polling only about 10% among white voters earlier in the week, and improved that to about 25%--that's at least a movement in the right direction. I hope it's the beginning of a backlash against the Clinton strategy, but it's not at all clear that it is.  It's also a good sign that he did well with whites under 30 and with white males.  Now if only they would turn up at the polls. Identity voting women might very well clinch it for Clinton.

UPDATE 1:  Watched Obama's victory speech on DVR delay. This guy has got it. Great intensity and strength. Loved the way he flipped the Clinton attacks about the Reagan comparison, etc.  Loved the way he framed the Clinton strategy as same old Beltway b.s. It allows him to attack the Clintons with a pretty vicious punch, but in the name of the politics of unity. Pretty deft. I thought he did a great job of repositioning himself as the candidate of all Americans--the outreach to Hispanics was nicely done. I think he parried the attacks and the negativity of the last week as well as could be imagined.  Loved the whole Si se puede theme. I hope he gets a big bounce going into Super Tuesday, but we'll see.

UPDATE 2:  Now back to reality--The negative campaigning will continue because it works. Every campaign season everybody complains about it, but it doesn't go away because in the risk/reward calculation, the rewards always justify the risks.  South Carolina proves nothing to the contrary. In addition, the politics of identity work against Obama unless he can find a way to flip it to his advantage, and maybe he will be able to do that. Speeches like the one tonight show that he might have what it takes. (But how many people will have heard it?) And the politics of resentment toward the Clintons might begin to play a factor, but it's too early to tell. But the gender/race issue is the only significant thing Clinton can leverage to differentiate herself from Obama. There is simply not enough separation on any other issue in the public imagination (except maybe leadership style/experience), and the Clintons will continue to use it until it's a certainty that it doesn't get results.

UPDATE 3:  Here's the speech:

UPDATE 4: I've heard some people complaining about Boomer generation support for  Clinton and how that's messing up Obama's chances.  Well, youngins, there's a solution. Show up at the polls. Once again, the over-45 voters are the huge majority at 60%.  Under 30s are 14%.  And by the way, women were 61%. This is not a winning formula for Obama nationwide. White male Democrats, as it turned out, went for Edwards, not Obama, according to the exit polls: Edwards 45% to Obama 27%. White women went to Clinton 42% to Obama's 22%.

UPDATE 5:  A word about Bill Clinton's role. I don't have a problem with it, and I find all the sanctimony about it rather annoying. Politics is a street fight. Always was and always will be. I think there are things that cross the line (a la Karl Rove), but I don't see that the Clintons have crossed it.  They are streetfighters, and while they are playing a tough game, I don't think they are playing unfairly. My blogging here about it has not been to pass some negative judgment on it, but to clarify what the Clinton strategy is, and clearly the race/gender factor is a big part of it. The Clintons are forcing Obama to find a way to define himself over against what they, the Clintons, represent, and so far I think Obama has done superbly well.

However the candidates may distinguish themselves on particular issues, they are a third- or fourth-level factor in the primaries.  For most voters they don't matter. The race/gender issue is a far more important factor in this race--maybe the most important factor when it comes down to voter psychology. I think the second most important is leadership style. 

The challenge for Obama is to demonstrate how his leadership style trumps Clinton's style precisely by taking their streetfighting mentality and flipping it into an opportunity to distinguish himself as the different kind of candidate he presents himself to be. If he is the real thing, he will find a way to do it. And so far I've been impressed with the way he has handled it.  He's not running scared. He's standing firm, parrying the attacks, and getting in some of his own. He's showing he's nimble, cool, and confident. The Clintons, on the contrary are looking hot and frustrated.

I hope that Obama wins the nomination, and I hope that if he wins Bill Clinton will fight as hard for him as he is now fighting for his wife. When the GOP unleashes its dogs, it will be good to have the Big Dog fighting on Obama's side.  Then most likely we'll find a way to appreciate what he brings to the fight. But just don't let him near the White House again.

UPDATE 6: Ted Kennedy 's Endorsement.  It's only significant if it's the beginning of a tidal shift of establishment figures toward Obama.  If Clinton's Jesse Jackson remark is playing as negatively among Democratic stalwarts as it appears to be, this could be the trigger of a significant shift. That remark is significant, not because it's Lee Atwaterish racism, but because it is no longer an innuendo with a deniability factor. It makes explicit the Clinton strategy that many didn't want to acknowledge as deliberate. The risk in the risk/reward calculation is backlash, and that remark may have triggered one among mainstream, Hillary-leaning Dems.  We'll see. Just speaking for myself, though, Caroline's endorsement carries a lot more symbolic weight. I'm just not sure if Ted's endorsement has that much political heft these days--any more than John Kerry's, for instance.

Managing the Fear Factor

During my sophomore year in college I lived on the same floor in a dormitory/apartment with some guys who were into heavy-duty weight-lifting.  They were very nice guys, the kind who would give you the shirts off their backs if you were in need on one. They were not particularly testosterone driven--they were, in fact, rather soft spoken and shy. This was 1970 and they were all pro-war Nixon supporters--a minority opinion at the time in that place. 

Every once in a while they needed an extra guy to spot for them, so they asked if I would.  So from time to time I'd hang with them. They weren't lifting for vanity--to look good. They were lifting too look big and powerful. They were very afraid, and bulking up was the best way they could think of to deal with it. They were always talking about crime and race and social protest riots and about the pervasive violence on the Boston streets, and how they were ready for it. Their main reinforcing message to one another was that the world was a bad place full of violent punks, and that they were prepared--no punk was going to mess with them without his paying a very steep price. They were in fact gentle souls, and as far as I know, none was ever in a fight. They were not aggressive or bullies, but I have no doubt they would have fought viciously and done a lot of damage if they were attacked.

I remember at the time being shocked that they should feel so threatened when walking the streets of Boston. That wasn't my experience in the least. I wondered if we lived in the same city. Stuff happened, as it does in all big cities, and there were some places I knew not to go. But since I had no need to go to those places, I didn't feel particularly threatened in all the places I did go. I listened to them and wondered if I was naive, oblivious of or in denial about all the nastiness that was lurking on every block of of the city. But it became clear to me that these guys were quasi-paranoidal. I don't think it had much to do with any concrete threats.  It had more to do with the anxiety and fear they felt as their "normal" world unraveled around them.

I think it was around then that I first began to understand how prudence often crosses the line into paranoia. That it happens every time someone lets fear become the tail wagging the dog, and it became clear to me that these guys were letting fear manage them, rather than their finding a way to manage their fear. It became clear to me that these guys were living in a self-reinforcing bubble constructed solely out of their anxieties.  Threats to their safety and well-being were everywhere--and people who didn't see it their way were just stupid, and they'd pay the price sooner or later for their lack of vigilance. A threat existed, and it didn't matter how unlikely it was to materialize--they needed to be prepared for it. They represented the conservative state of mind at the time that saw Liberals as conservatives who hadn't been mugged yet. They had no need to get mugged to learn that lesson. The world was a vicious place, and they were ready to take it on. 

I was reminded of these guys while reading a Harold Henderson profile of Rick Perlstein (h/t Digby), a liberal intellectual, who, in his book Before the Storm and many articles, has made a career of sympathetically trying to understand conservatives.  Henderson says this of Perlstein's approach:

The point is, if you can'€™t feel what they feel, then you can'€™t take them seriously as political opponents. You see only the flimsy intellectual foundations and miss the motivating power of strategically harnessed resentment. From Adlai Stevenson to John Kerry, high-minded liberals have acted as if they were blind to the root feelings that feed the followers of politicians like Nixon and Bush.

And later:

In short, Perlstein simply refuses to let his readers off the horns of his dilemma. Better than anyone, he makes the case that conservatives can't govern, can'€™t think straight, can't even count. And at the same time he encourages nonconservatives to fraternize with them, because we're going to be living with them in Nixonland forever. 

Nixonland is the title of Perlstein's forthcoming book, and I plan on reading it and his first book because even though I've said some pretty nasty things about movement conservatism, I've always been fascinated by it as a social phenomenon. There are principled, thoughtful conservatives, but I'm not talking about them.  Far more scary, in my opinion, than the evils that frighten conservatives, is the fear and resentment that smolder in movement conservatives' souls.  Living with that is scary, like living on top of an earthquake fault. Its scariness presides precisely in that it is this raw, primeval energy that is as imperviousness to thought or persuasion as the geological pressure that builds and releases in the earth. Things can be done to dissipate the building energy before it releases, but it cannot be reasoned with. It has become increasingly clear to me that this is really what politics is about: much more than wonkish policy position papers, it's about knowing how to manage irrational social forces in the body politic.

So as angry as I have been in many of the pieces that I have posted here about the stupidity and incompetence and corruption of our political class and about the dangers of movement conservatism and the need to fight it, It's becoming clearer to me that success cannot come from an actively belligerent attitude toward these regressive social forces and the movements that grow from them. If the dominant forces that govern financial markets are fear and greed, then the dominant forces that govern politics are fear and resentment. You can't fight them; you have to try to tame them.  The Gresham's Law of politics is that fear and resentment always drive out principle and idealism. That's just the way it is. Nevertheless, fear and resentment can be effectively managed with the right kind of leadership.

So the issue is not whether fear and resentment are good or bad, but to accept them as realities and think prudently about how to best manage them. So leave aside the question whether Obama is more principled and idealistic than Clinton. We are entering a period during which the nation is likely to have its fears and anxieties aggravated by financial turmoil and the likelihood of another terrorist attack. We are a country full of people like my weightlifter friends--nice, decent folks easily frightened. We do not live in a society that is mature enough to deal with these threats with the proverbial stiff upper lip. We are more likely to want to flail out with resentment as we did against Iraq demanding that 9/11 be avenged.  And if the economy tanks, the fear and anxiety will be ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous politicians of both left and right.

When people are confused and frightened, the first step is to calm them down, to do what needs to be done to avert panic and overreaction.  Liberals can't do this by telling frightened conservatives that their fears are baseless and their resentments silly, even if they are. That would be as successful as my saying something along those lines to my weightlifter friends. All that accomplishes would be to give them a good laugh. If I were able to bench press 350 lbs., then maybe they would have listened to me. For this is the nature of our dilemma--finding the kind of leader who will have the credibility to allay the country's fears in a time of crisis.

We live in a politically immature society--its electing Bush for a second term is proof of that. It is far too easily manipulated by the rhetoric of fear. And so in such a politically immature society, when people across the board are anxious and confused, they cannot be calmed or know what to think unless there is a strong, authoritative leader to tell them what to feel and think.  They are all too receptive to a Big Daddy, and a Big Daddy is the worst possibility, but clearly it is an attractive  solution for lots of Americans like my weightlifter friends.

So is there an alternative? Is there another kind of leadership style that will meet the needs of fearful, confused people for direction and reassurance? I don't know that any of the Democratic candidates would have much initial credibility with that segment of the electorate governed by the fear factor.  But while I am fairly certain that my weightlifter friends would not vote for Obama, I think they would warm to him and learn to respect his calm confidence if he were elected. And that's my reason for supporting Obama over Clinton.  I think he will be a far more effective leader than she in allaying and managing the country's fears.

If we are going into the kind of crisis years I think we are, the last thing we need is the Republicans who all too easily play the Big Daddy card.  Hillary Clinton at best might be an effective bureaucratic in-fighter who will get a program or two through, but she is unlikely to be the calming, uniting presence that calls out the best part of us as a people in a time of crisis.  She is a resentment factory.

But with Obama, I think you have someone who has the instincts and the empathy and the cool to calm and reassure the nation in tough times. He may or not be able to get much done legislatively. But I don't think anybody will get much done. Whoever is elected will inherit such a mess it's unlikely much more will be accomplished than just beginning to dig out of it. Obama might do much better, but  I would be satisfied to elect someone who has the best chance of preventing things from getting worse.

At this point, the last thing we need is the Republicans' politics of fear, and we don't need streetfighters like the Clintons. We need what Obama brings. Obama is not Big Daddy or a political streetfighter; he, though not without flaws, is nevertheless the representative of our best selves--black and white together, poised, cool, confident.  Of all the candidates he best represents the political maturity we need so badly at this moment, and we will need to grow up if we are to get through the next decade. He gives us our best chance, because he among all the candidates is best able to manage the collective fear factor. As long as fear rules us, nothing good is possible.

Retrieval of an Unflattened Wor(l)d

Let's take a break from politics, shall we?  I'm back to Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, and I wanted to focus on this important idea about how the redemption of language is the path to the redemption of experience:

. . . in the post-Romantic context, the complaint is often made that language as we ordinarily use it has been flattened, emptied. That is, the ordinary use of language in our age operates with it as though its only function were the instrumental one of designating already recognized elements.  The constitutive, revelatory power of language is totally sidelined and ignored or even denied.  This understanding of language-use is correlative with a stance in which we treat things, and even each other, in purely instrumental terms. . . .

This is often spoken of as a flattening, or impoverishment of language, and not simply as an inadequate understanding of language on the part of (some of) its users. . . . Through language in its constitutive use (let's call it Poetry), we open up contact with something higher or deeper (be it God, or the depths of human nature, desire, the Will to Power, or whatever) through language. Poetry can be seen as an event with performative force, words which open up contact, make something manifest for the first time.  But what is this event?

Outside the most subjectivistic interpretations I reviewed above, it has an objective side: something language-transcendent is manifest, set free.  But it also has an inescapably subjective aspect.  This reality is made manifest to us, who speak this language, have this sensibility, have been prepared by previous speech or experience.  So this new word resonates in/for us; that the word reveals what it does is ALSO a fact about us, even though it is more than this.  It could in principle eventually resonate for everyone, but only because they will have been inducted into the language and the human meanings with which it can resonate.  . . .

Unlike the references of earlier poems, which were guaranteed by established public meanings (the Chain of Being, Divine history, and the like), modern poetry doesn't rely on already recognized structures.  It opens new paths, "sets free" new realities, but only for those for whom it resonates.  ASA, p 758.

I will first assume that most of the readers here understand and agree with the basic assumption Taylor is making about the flattening of language and of its potential for opening up new experience. If you don't buy that, I understand, but my concern here is not to defend the idea, but to explore its implications.

I think the flattening trend in language correlates with a flattening trend in our souls.  The fact that so many educated people are incapable of responding to poetry is a symptom.  It's as if we all slowly went colorblind, but because everyone else is going through it, it seems normal. And when someone comes along who describes what the world looks like in color, we're bored by it because we don't know what he's talking about, and who cares anyway?  Where's seeing in color going to get you in a world most people see in black and white?  And pretty soon people forget altogether what color is and they start to think that people who talk about color are crazy and just making it up. 

This, I think, is a fairly apt analogy to our condition as moderns in relationship with  a whole range of experiences that are not sense based, not the least of which is spiritual experience. The established public meanings for these experiences has collapsed. Traditionalists want to retain those older established public meanings because they fear, correctly, that their collapse results in an impoverishment of the soul. Our current condition is analogous to the situation of the child with musical talent born into a family of musical ignoramuses as contrasted with the child born into a family of talented, accomplished musicians. Which child is more likely prosper musically?  Our spiritual potential, like the child's musical talent, has a far greater chance of being fully realized if it develops in an environment that recognizes it, is enthusiastic to nourish it, and knows how to nourish it. Even aborigine societies do a better job at these three than modern societies. And yet moderns think they are in every respect superior.

But what traditionalists don't realize is that because the meanings have already collapsed, pretending that they haven't is counterproductive and harmful.  This pretending results in the zombie traditionalism that I've written about here in the past.  Zombie traditionalism is analogous to colorblind people going around telling everyone they can see colors, when all they're doing is imitating the talk of people who in the past did in fact see colors. Their dishonesty is obvious to anyone with a shred of common sense, and they set back the cause of recovering color-sightedness because such a project becomes associated in the public imagination with this kind of delusional or dishonest stupidity. 

The best kind of religiosity at this point is the kind that would be akin to the colorblind recognizing that they don't see colors, but showing an eagerness and openness to learning how to do it again.  So the task now is one of slow recovery, and it starts with the recovery of language and its multi-dimensionality, and that is the task of poetry and mythopoesis. It starts with our attempts to recover how language reveals dimensions of reality that are not given in our ordinary experience, and it expands to a recovery of a way of reading everything in world as having dimensions that are not available to our ordinary experience, but which have the potential to be opened up, to have their interior multi-dimensionality revealed.

For the way we look now at nature with the eyes of the scientific materialist is exactly the same as the way the fundamentalist looks at the Bible. Both see only the surfaces, both try to extract the rules and laws that this surface reading seems to indicate, which has a certain usefulness, but ultimately such exercises in abstraction lead us into a kind of alienation, which in turn insures that we utterly misunderstand that which we are seeing.

Modernity is the story of progressive alienation, and Taylor is one of its finest chroniclers.  The postmodern task is to recovery.  And at its root this recovery while it is a recovery of what has been lost is most deeply a recovery from our alienation. And that recovery will be achieved when all of us no longer live in a soul-flattened and language-flattened world.

(For other posts on Taylor's book, see here, here, here, and here.)

Debate Strategy (Second Update Wed. )

I don't think that most people really care who was right or wrong in a debate; it's more a question of how the candidates handle themselves and what they reveal about who they are in a stressful situation. I don't think it's a bad thing that the candidates get it on.  I think it's important for Obama to show some fight.  It's one thing to have a message of unity; it's another to be a doormat. If he's going up against the Republicans he's going to have to defend himself.

But Obama is in the tougher position here.  If his strength lies in being the transracial candidate, it's in the Clinton's interest to make him the "black candidate".  If his strength lies in being the healer, the conciliator who who wants to heal the nation's partisan wounds, it's in the Clinton's interest to force him to come out swinging. Obama's attractiveness as a candidate lies in his cool, and so the Clintons will do everything they can to make him look hot.  He needs to find a cool fighting style, more epee than broadsword, more Jet Li than Mike Tyson. More good-humored wit than hot, reactive brawn. From where I sit, so far so good, but we'll see how it plays out. A lot depends on how the media spin it and how a public consensus develops on who handles himself or herself better here. 

The idea that Edwards won last night is silly if winning means not being part of the fight.  He'd switch places with either of his opponents in a minute.  There's a difference between transcending the fight and being in the fight to begin with, and at this point Edwards just isn't in it.  If he does get back in it--and he could--he will be scrapping exactly the way Obama and Clinton are now.

UPDATE: See also here:

Most pundits felt that Gore and Kerry won their debates on the merits, but it was indisputable that they failed to connect with the electorate on a gut level. And that cost them. We need a candidate who runs a campaign that's capable of giving as good as it gets, or of hitting back harder. But we also need a candidate who's capable of appealing to voters, of inspiring their trust and confidence, and of connecting with independents and moderate Republicans. . . . Remember, debates aren't for pundits, they're for undecided voters. And time and again, those voters are repelled by strong attacks, however accurate, and drawn to the candidate who seems to rise above them.

Easier said than done--and you need help from a sympathetic media. If the media theme during  the Gore/Bush debate focussed on what a clueless, in-over-his-head Lost Boy Bush appeared to be, maybe the country would have realized that he was a clueless, in-over-his-head Lost Boy.

UPDATE 2:  An article by ABC is rightly getting some scrutiny by the blogosphere.  It calls Obama's response to a reporter testy, using phrases like "shot back".  It all fits into the narrative that Obama is hot and frustrated.  Judge for yourself if that's an accurate description:

What Obama Said

"I think we're in one of those times right now where people feel like things as they are going aren't working, that we're bogged down in the same arguments we've been having, and they're not useful. The Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I mean, I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there for the last 10-15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the [GOP] presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. You know, we've done that. We've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."  At RGJ.com

In other words, we've been there done that; it doesn't work.  Nevertheless, is anybody going to seriously deny that since 1980 the GOP has taken the initiative and forced the Dems into a consistently reactive/defensive posture?  It's obviously and pathetically true. The Dems have been the clueless party of mediocrity and complacency and were completely blindsided by the conservative backlash, and they were ineffectual in their response to it. The most successful politician they could muster during this period was the Republican-lite Bill Clinton. And now that same pathetic Democratic establishment wants more of that same pathetic, tired act.

Isn't the obvious point Obama makes that in the same way the country reversed direction in 1980--and it did, it most certainly did--it is ready now to reverse direction again, this time in a forward gear rather than in reverse. The Bush presidency is not the betrayal of the Reagan legacy, but its efflorescence and the apotheosis of its simplemindedness, moral bankruptcy, and fundamental emptiness.  And in that sense, let us all fervently hope, it has played out.