A Teachable Moment

I’m going to give some free advice to the Republicans on Capitol Hill, since it appears that (once again), I am smarter than they are. You are missing a gigantic opportunity with the appointees having tax problems. It shouldn’t be about forcing them to withdraw and picking up a momentary (and utterly worthless) victory.

This, is a teachable moment. Here is what you say:

It is unfortunate that otherwise well qualified individuals, who the president has sought out to lead this new administration, have found themselves tied up in the nuance of the federal tax code. This does not speak to their qualifications, it speaks to a greater truth. Our tax code has become so unmanageable, so incomprehensible, that even the most qualified leaders of government can not comply with the law. We can ease the tax burden – the compliance costs – and restore faith in government, in one fell swoop, by simplifying the tax code. President Obama has said that we need smarter, more effective government, what better place to start than a tax code so voluminous that the most qualified governmental leaders can not understand it?

To Those Who May Find This Place

This really isn’t an “active” blog, it’s more of something I have, just in case.

Random Thought of the Day

My brain does not shut down. Ever. Going to sleep is one of the most difficult things in the world for me because the thoughts just won’t stop. And it’s not even important stuff, it’s stuff like this:

Why did the Lone Ranger have a sidekick?

Is it just me?

Or does Benedict XVI look a bit like Emperor Palpatine?

Survived the Fire

In case you happened to be wondering, the Complex Fire (in Carona-Yorba Linda-Anaheim Hills) was very close to my house. In fact, we were evacuated on Saturday afternoon. No damage to the house, the family business survived (but for one company car).

Will try to get pictures up in the next day or two, once I figure out how to get them from the iPhone to the interwebs.

What comes next?

I think we are on the verge of a political realignment. There is a question as to what should happen to the conservative movement (or if it should even exist as a movement). There is a question as to what should and will happen to the Republican Party – will it regain it’s senses and return to its roots in the West and Northeast or will it become an American version of the European Christian Democrats as a Southern social-big-government conservative party?

Beyond that, there is a question as to what libertarians should do. Do we stick with a populist, know-nothing, preaching, and often condescending GOP? Do we move towards a progressive Democratic Party? Or do we try and forge a new way forward to shift the debate?

As it stands right now, the GOP has a major problem with the electorate, and the electoral college, but that’s another post.

As it stand, I think it’s going to be an interesting couple of years.

Possible Rebranding

There’s a half decent chance that I’m going to start blogging again.  But I don’t know.  Also, new design/template.

No Longer Excited

It wasn’t that long ago that I was excited about politics. I mean, I couldn’t get enough of it. Now, not so much.

Part of it, I think, is because I’ve let go of the “us-versus-them” mentality that so many have in politics. Truth is, you probably need that mentality to do it long term.

But, I am not there any more. It’s no longer important to me who wins the news cycle, or what the latest poll says. Sure, there are a few tracking sites that I read (like Election Projection and 538) but not because I’m looking for every possible data point to analyze the race to death. I’m more interested in the general shape of the country, what direction we’re going in.

See, I’ve come to a realization. Both of the major parties, well actually, the elected members of the major parties are truly only interested in their own power. I’m not cynical, just a realist. My AP government teacher once said, “a politician’s primary goal is to get re-elected.” All these years later, it’s still true. The vast majority of them are out for their own power and nothing else.

There are a few noble servants, but they are fewer and further between. There are too many who approach politics as the family business, cashing in our their famous name without actually doing anything in real life first. Even the best intentioned get to Washington and find the pleasures of power too corrupting.

Not that there’s much we can do, power corrupts, after all. The best thing we can do is limit the power. A part time legislature would be nice, but then that would shift more power to an executive that is out of hand. A part time legislature that shut the lights off a few Cabinet Departments before it left would be nice. But that’s the kind of statement that would make people think that I’m using illegal drugs.

But back to my point. I’m not excited. I’m just not. As my family and friends get excited over Governor Palin or Senator Obama, I just shrug my shoulders and ask if I can vote for Jimmy Buffett this year.

Because if the world’s going to end, we might as well throw a party.

What We Would Call a Bad Idea

In election years, you hear a lot of bad ideas. Candidates should do this, candidates should do that, they shouldn’t do this or that but something else instead. And then you have an entirely different kind of bad idea.

like this

If you assume that Dick Cheney would have lost in the primary, then yes, Dick Cheney as a candidate would have been a good idea. It would have made the whole “Change Agent” angle a bit easier – and it would be easier still if a member of Congress didn’t win the nomination.

But the risk you run is basically it would run against the GOP’s history to not vote for Cheney. The GOP tends to fall in line, and vote for the guy who’s turn it is.

In 1968, it was Nixon’s turn – rightfully so after the close race in 1960. 1976, it was Ford’s turn – even though Reagan would have been a better choice. Speaking of, in 1980, it was Reagan’s turn. Bush 41 in 1988. Cheney has had a lifetime in the party. White House Chief of Staff, Member of Congress, Secretary of Defense, Vice-President. It would be running a very big risk that a lot of GOP voters wouldn’t come to the conclusion that it was Cheney’s turn.

Obama versus Cheney would be the kind of election that the GOP likely wouldn’t recover from in my lifetime.

Convention Afterthoughts

One thing from the GOP convention has been bouncing around my brain the last few days.  There was a phrase used over and over by several speakers: A Do Nothing Congress.  Or as Gov. Palin said, “A Do Nothing Senate.

This bugs me for two reasons.  First, it basically ignores that Senator McCain has been a member of that Do Nothing Congress.  It is going to be very difficult for McCain to run as a Change Agent when he is basically a part of the Establishment.  If he can pull it off, well, that’ll be one hell of a campaign.

But it’s the second reason that this phrase keeps bouncing around in my head.  A Do Nothing Congress.  One of the times I heard it, I turned to my fiscally conservative, small business owning dad and said, “You know, there was a time when conservatives would have approved of a Do Nothing Congress.”

He just nodded and said, “Yeah.”

Presidential Experience

We’ve been hearing a lot lately that experience is very important when running for president. The more I think about it, however, the more I find this argument to incongruent with reality. The fact is, the only real training you can have to be president is to actually be president. By that standard, there are exactly two people in the whole of the world who are qualified to be president and constitutionally eligible to be president: Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush.

The truth is, there is no other job like it in the world, especially in modern times. Nothing comes close. You can either be a good president or you can’t. Any sort of “training” or “prep-work” is ultimately useless. Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the record in the modern era (which we’ll call 1932 onward).

The American presidents in that time were: FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush.

We have 12 presidents, 5 who served as governors, one general, four who served as Senators before becoming president or vice-president, five former vice-presidents (some heavy cross-over with the last group), and five who served in the House of Representatives (also some cross over).

What do we find when we look at these 12 men? First, I think it’s worth pointing out that half came to Washington without any real inside-the-beltway experience (FDR was an Assistant Navy Secretary in the Wilson Administration, Eisenhower was a military leader, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton were governors who never held any office in Washington other than president). The other half for varying lengths of time, in Congress (Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon serving in both houses; Truman only in the Senate, and GHW Bush in the House before taking several prominent foreign policy roles including Ambassador to the UN and head of the CIA).

So, let’s break these men into categories. First, let’s look at those who had previously served as Vice-President: Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and GHW Bush. What can we say about this category of presidents? Truman, Johnson, and Bush look better with time, but left office with less than stellar marks. Nixon is a case study in things that can go wrong with a politician. And Ford served admirably, helping the nation heal in the midst of a legitimate constitutional crisis. Yet none of these men will, for a variety of reasons, be seen as great presidents during my life time.

As for those who served in Congress, we again have the five mention in the preceding paragraph and Kennedy. Kennedy is a case study in iconography (if I may use a word for its unintended meaning). To this day, he represents all that could have been, he represents potential cut short. But when looking at his relatively short time as president, we see that he was able to do quite a bit. Not unimpressive. Probably the most impressive of those who served in Congress.

Eisenhower gets his own category because he’s the only one who did not hold elective office before becoming president. And really, his presidency is quite inspiring, given the times and the challenges facing the nation. The Interstate Highway system fueled economic growth; progress on civil rights; and the Eisenhower Doctrine of opposing communism in the Mid East.

And then there were those who were Governors. It is safe to say that FDR was the game changer when it came to the presidency. Part a product of conditions. Part a product of ideology. And part a product of the changes that were happening within our society (particularly the Industrial Revolution). FDR reshaped government in a way that no one else has and no one else could. Reagan, on the other hand, was the antidote for the overreach of government. As Eisenhower accepted FDR’s changes, Clinton accepted Reagan’s. Carter and GW Bush, I think it’s safe to say were disasters in office. Carter with his Stagflation, Bush with, well, everything set their parties back a generation and the ideological movements supporting them in shambles. It should also be pointed out that Reagan and FDR were governors of the largest States in the Union while the others were governors of much smaller States that did not have half the duties and issues faced by the large State governors.

So, let’s try and rank these guys, see who they stack up. I’d put them in this order: FDR; Reagan; Eisenhower; Kennedy; Truman; Clinton; Ford; Johnson; GHW Bush; Carter; GW Bush; and, Nixon. Nixon goes last because despite his ability to go to China and engage the Communists there, he sent the Republic to the edge of a constitutional crisis that it is still recovering from (case in point: every scandal is tagged: story”-gate” after Watergate).

The pattern, as I see it, is that executive experience is most helpful, but it is not the be all end all. The bottom half of the list is littered with those who were former governors and vice-presidents.

What it comes down to, ultimately, isn’t “experience”, because as I’ve pointed out, there is no true “experience” that can translate well to the Oval Office; but it comes down to the ability to formulate policy and articulate it in a way that will garner a consensus. Look at the bottom half of that list again, Ford, Johnson, Carter, Nixon, and both Bushs. None were great orators, the one liners were remember from them are almost punch lines (ok, you can add Clinton to the crowd of punch line guys). Truman was not particularly great at this, at least from my understanding. But FDR, Reagan, Eisenhower, and Kennedy were. That’s what gave them a much better shot of being among the greats of era.

So, what we’ve learned is that being Vice-President doesn’t make you automatically suited to be president, in fact, it probably means you won’t be a good president. We’ve also learned that the less time you spend in Congress, the better. Finally, it turns out that being governor of a big State with real authority is most helpful (Texas, while a big state, has in many ways, a small state government – the legislature meets every other year, the governor doesn’t do much, etc).

How does this translate to Election ‘08? That’s a good question. And one for another post at a later date. Right now, it’s just something to think about.

Palin

Well, if you haven’t heard by now, John McCain has selected Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate. And really, if you haven’t heard by now, I have to ask why you are coming to this little blog (that is mostly dead) for news and/or analysis. There’s lots of commentary, everywhere really, about what this means. I’ll just point you to a few that I find particularly interesting – EM seems particularly excited, Sullivan is rather skeptical, but really, it was this post from THS about Governor Palin that I think finally got me to distill my opinion.

My take is basically this: she is a compelling story and candidate, and is a true outside the beltway pick. She should be a rising/future star of the GOP. But. And this is a big but. Right now, at this moment, she does not strike me as being ready for prime time.

Given McCain’s advanced age and health issues, the Veep isn’t necessarily a position that is going to allow for a lot of on the job training in a McCain Administration. But it’s not really even that issue that worries me. What worries me is that she’s making the jump to the national stage before she’s ready. In four or eight years, she’d be a front runner for the GOP nomination. She’d have a great deal more experience and time to contemplate foreign policy issues beyond Canada. But if something goes bad in this campaign (as is likely with a neophyte on the national stage), her political career is effectively done at the end of her time as governor.

I don’t know that much about her, to be honest. I wasn’t really sure anyone outside of Alaska knew all that much about here – which is why all the insta-analysis and cheering/jeering is so troubling to me. Perhaps she will show herself to be competent and worthy of the job – maybe she’ll even upstage McCain (which would be a different kind of trouble for the GOP). But right now, my gut tells me it’s too soon for Sarah Palin to be on the national stage.

On Being Less Political

It’s a strange thing, this election cycle. See, I’m not really all that interested. This is very strange for me because I’ve followed every election since 1988 (when I was 10) very closely. 2000 and 2004 were the big years, the first because I was finishing up a degree in political science and the second because I was in the middle of law school.

But somewhere in the last four years, I’ve lost my taste for politics. There was a time, when I was blogging like a crackhead, that I was a constant consumer of information. I read six newspapers on line (The LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, OC Register, Sacramento Bee, and the London Daily Telegraph), plus the Drudge Report. I had over 50 blogs bookmarked, most of which I read at least once a week (usually a lot more than that). If I wasn’t watching ESPN, I was watching Fox News or MSNBC, or even CNN.

Now I maintain this blog just in case I get the urge to blog. But it’s not something that I’m constantly thinking about. I read maybe three or four blogs each day, occasionally clicking through to see what so-and-so said about whatever their rage de jour is.

I think this has given me a little bit of perspective. I can now see the forest for the trees. I am amazed how stupid both the left and the right within the blogsphere can be. Every little thing is personal. There’s no room for agreement on anything.

It is, to be honest, disheartening. I tend to believe that there are more things that unite Americans than divide us. I think we all believe in liberty, that capitalism – with all its flaws – is the best economic system for a free society, that generally people should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit, but that we have, at the very least, a moral obligation to help those in need. How we get there is the difference. Politics should not be a perpetual blood feud, left to the most childish among us.

I have to say, that is the thing that might be most heartening to me in this election. For the first time in my life, it feels like there’s at least one grown up on the ballot. Which one it is, remains to be seen.

You Might Want to Get Better Lawyers, Senator

I’ll admit right from the start that I’m a former fan of John McCain. I supported him in 2000 and thought he’d be a much better president over the last 8 years (of course, in hindsight, my 3 year old dog would have been a better president over the last 8 years, but that’s neither here nor there).

But McCain’s statement about the decision in Heller is a little troubling. Actually, it’s a lot troubling, because it speaks so well of his complete lack of understanding as to how our legal system works. Or at least how his campaign thinks our legal system works, which would indicate how a McCain Administration would think our legal system works. Here is his statement (via Sullivan). The important line is here:

Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right – sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

Ok, first of all, Heller did not incorporate the Second Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the States. It only applies to the Federal government, if you are going to claim to be a federalist, you might want to understand that basic principle of federalism. Chicago’s gun ban will not be affected by this decision, even Scalia himself says so in the opinion. (see the long list of posts, here). This is what the legal community refers to as a very narrow ruling.

The ruling did not hold that gun ownership is a fundamental right, either. The decision recognized that the federal government could not ban the ownership of hand guns. However, it also recognized that you can’t go buy a surface-to-air missile launcher either. Or trade in your Hummer for a tank. In fact, Scalia’s opinion – despite what some would have you believe – is one of his more muted decisions.

As for the elitist canard, I’m already tired of it. McCain ran as an anti-populist and now is picking up on the populist disgust for elitists? Really? Why not go ahead and pick Huckabee as your running mate so that we can all ignore the run up to your impending monumental defeat in November.

Quote for the Day

“Apart from the whole loving my own gender thing, I think I may be straight.” – Andrew Sullivan today commenting on a post at the Onion.

Some days, you just got to love the internet.

Damn

George Carlin is dead.

Damn.

Save Online Poker

Seriously, there were few political moves that pissed me off more in the last few years than when Kyl and Frist snuck a ban on internet gambling into the port security bill. Luckily, there is a bill, sponsored by Ron Paul and Barney Frank (how sweet of a combination is that?) that is a step towards undoing the nightmare.

The UIGEA regulations will demand that banks block “unlawful internet gambling” but there is no definition of this vague term. Banks will be forced to block millions of transactions that are not in fact illegal. As a result, you may not be able to play poker or any other game of skill online. HR 5767 will prevent this regulatory nightmare. The King amendment will force the regulatory agencies to define “unlawful internet gambling” through a formal rulemaking, with due process and opportunity for input from affected parties.

Here is a list of members of the House Financial Services Committee, call them, especially if any of them represent you (I actually sent an email to my rep, who is on that list).

Well, what are you waiting for?

hattip: good Prof. Bainbridge

Conservative Threads

EM – the fashion goddess that she is – raises a good point about the lack of decent conservative and libertarian t-shirts out there. Well, assuming you don’t count all the pot related t-shirts as libertarian.

I have one shirt from Those Shirts, but I won’t tell you which one. Other than that, I don’t have any political clothing. I’ve seen a few shirts that I’d consider picking up, but usually pass. So, why aren’t there any good shirts out there for young conservatives?

I know for certain it’s not because the ideals can’t be condensed into a neat little slogan. I know this because they managed to teach President Bush the buzz words of the movement, and two Ivy League degrees or not, I seriously think my dog has better critical thinking skills than the president.

Nor do I buy the whole “younger people are more liberal” argument. I was a rather smart ass libertarian by the time I was in college. But then, perhaps I’m a little bit less than “normal”.

The best explanation I can come up with is that those who design conservative t-shirts really don’t have much imagination. Seriously, click on that link for Those Shirts, up above. Do any of those strike you as anywhere near creative?

Granted, “I only date Democrats” isn’t all that creative, either. But the look is probably better than any of the choices on Those Shirts.

I don’t expect this to get any better real soon, as I think the right has lost it’s way and is on the verge of going into the wilderness for a generation… but hey, I could be wrong.

Oh, So Close, So Very, Very Close

I don’t read many blogs these days. There’s actually only maybe 5-7 that I read daily, and one is more out of morbid curiosity than intellectual interest. But one that I do enjoy reading, and will likely remain on my bookmarks is the American Princess.

Now, what’s interesting is that the Princess has been drifting leftward lately. In the way that a few of us already have, and I suspect many more will in the next couple of years. Actually, leftward is not the best term. I am not, after all, a liberal in the contemporary sense of the word, nor do I suspect that EM is either.

The shift, I think, has been away from fundamentalism and towards something different. Something critical, something reasoned, something pragmatic. That is why I find this post so interesting by Thad, AP’s token liberal.

What we have really seen over the course of the Bush Administration is the triumph, and ultimate fall, of fundamentalism in American politics. It is fundamentalists who see the world in terms of black and white. And it should be noted here that not all conservatives are fundamentalists and not all fundamentalists are conservative. There are liberal fundamentalists (See: Edwards, John).

If Thad were to replace the term “conservative” in his post with “fundamentalist”, he would be dead on. There are so many ways in which the Bush Administration has been a mess, but at it’s core is fundamentalism. The belief that one is righteous and can do no wrong in his quest – that, I think, is the essence of fundamentalism, at least in the contemporary world. The president has been a disaster, an epic disaster, he is a two term Jimmy Carter. But he is not a conservative, not by any measure I’ve ever known. President Bush is a fundamentalist.

Many of us did not want to believe it early on, so we bought into it. But as time passed our better angels pulled us to the light. We recognized that reasonable minds can disagree. We recognized that “winning at any cost” meant just that, and the cost was going to be the soul of this Republic.

There is a reason why the president has historically terrible approval numbers, and why Obama will likely win in a landslide. It is because we are not a fundamentalist people. We are not crusaders, we only want to live out this life in peace, and hopefully leave the world a little better than it was when we got here.

Please Make it Stop

Dear Michelob, look, we understand that American macrobrews suck ass. Seriously, we totally understand that.

But is this really the direction you want to go?

Adding fruit to your crappy beer is not going to make it any better. You know what will make it better? Making it more like good beers, I’d suggest beers brewed in England, Ireland, and Germany.

Or, you know, you can continue to suck ass.

And They Call California Crazy?

Seriously, for all the crap people talk about California, we haven’t had a governor file for divorce (while serving) and then have he and his wife fight over who gets the governor’s mansion.

Nope, we leave that sort of thing to our neighbors in the Silver State.

Is it Just Me…

Or does it seem like Coldplay is trying to become U2?

Just asking?

The Case for Same Sex Marriage

Or more specifically, the case for the California Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the ban on same sex marriage in California.

This post by good blog-friend Ken got me started the other day, as you can see from the comments, I had a few things to say. I was going to just comment, but there are so many issues to deal with, I felt it was worthy of its own post. So, here goes.

Bust of a Wednesday Night

I am suppose to be in Santa Monica right now at an event that involves beautiful women, music, and alcohol. I had even convinced my boss to do an appearance tomorrow morning in Vista, so that I could recoup in the morning. And then, about 3 hours ago, I got a headache, and some gunk began to build in my throat, and my eyes started to hurt.

I don’t typically get sick, and when I do, I usually power through, but an hour and a half drive from my office to Santa Monica, while not feeling well, followed by load music and alcohol, followed by an equally long (but different) drive home in the wee hours of the morn just did not seem like a very good idea.

Fuck.

Drugs and Immigration

I have a bit of a contrarian stance when it comes to illegal immigration. I don’t believe that enforcement first is going to work, nor do I believe comprehensive reform will work well either (though, if those are the only two choices, I would prefer comprehensive reform). I also don’t think that the status quo can be maintained.

But ultimately, I do not think that we can “solve” the immigration issue unless we look at why people are coming here. And the reason they are coming here is the reason everyone has come here: a better life. The fact is, a lot of people come to the US from Central and South America because those countries are an absolute mess.

This includes, if you are wondering, Mexico.

In the year and a half since Calderon launched a crackdown against drug gangs, about 4,100 people have died, the government says.At least 1,400 have been killed so far this year, including 170 in Tijuana, about 400 in Ciudad Juarez and 270 more in the northern state of Sinaloa.

Mexico is basically in the midst of a civil war, and America doesn’t seem to be paying much attention. But we should be, for a couple of reasons… if the drug war continues, we should expect more movement across the border, in the form of refugees. Beyond that, it is only a matter of time until a fight between the Mexican Army and the drug gangs near the border extends into US territory.

Now, personally, I’d prefer to see most drugs legalized (at least pot, probably cocaine, and I’m on the fence about the others). Gangs get involved in drugs because they are capitalists and recognize where there is a high profit. Sure, there is a high risk, but the higher the risk, the higher the process.

But of course, we can’t legalize drugs because, drugs are bad. Granted, we took that approach to alcohol and all that came of it was the Kennedys getting rich. If you really want to take the profit out of drugs for gangs, the easiest way to do it is legalize it… you don’t hear about the mob running booze any more, do you?

Instead we get this:

But for now, the bulwark of his strategy is the army, which says it has made more than 5,800 arrests and intercepted 2,900 tons of marijuana and 24 tons of cocaine. One commentator calculated that overall, drug seizures have cost traffickers as much as $20 billion. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reported last November that street prices of cocaine and methamphetamine had risen, and purity levels had fallen — signs interdiction was working.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that we will see legalization any time soon, so we are left with a neighboring country fighting a civil war that we ignore. And we ignore even the possibility that people see this as being a reason why people might decide to risk their lives to come to the US.

You keep using that word…

I don’t think it means what you think it means.

There’s an interesting comparison of what exactly conservativism is in American politics on display between the Princess and this post over at the Corner, well really the quote by Huckabee.

I’m more or less a libertarian, my politics can be summed up thusly: keep my taxes low and leave me the hell alone. I’ve pretty much given up on the GOP – and keep in mind, I supported McCain in 2000 – over the last 7 years. The party has been a complete disaster at the helm, and it is due in large part to the fact that the GOP has decided that the power of government should be wielded for what it considers “good”. In many respects, they are no different than what passes for the left in American politics – both sides are out to use government to improve society in its own vision.

The problem is, a free society can not be improved from the top down. It’s a bottom up process. Sure, political leaders can set a tone, and occasionally steer the mass of humanity that is a free society. Unfortunately, contemporary American politics is fashioned in a way that suggests everything can be solved from the top down.

The beauty, in my mind, of libertarian thought is that it generally understands that bottom up improvement is possible. It understands that top down politics doesn’t work. Instead, libertarianism recognizes that the best government is the government that governs least. It understands that if you basically get out of the way of a free society, it will take care of itself. Sure, there’s some role for government, but it’s not the be-all-end-all of making the world a better place.

The Problem with Conservatism

I don’t think I can really call myself conservative anymore. Unlike the good Prof. Bainbridge, I’ve never been one to believe in standing athwart history and yelling stop.

So, not surprisingly, I think there is something more to Ms. McArdle’s question.

First, I think the “Stop!” approach is simply foolhardy. While many argue that human perfectibility is impossible, it is undeniably true that the entire course of human history has been a quest for improvement. Sometimes it has been bad (see Germany, 1932-1941). But usually it has been good (see United States of America, 1776-1789). It is, I believe, part of human nature to seek self-improvement, and by extension for societies to do the same.

Perhaps it should be that conservativism is not so much an ideology as a pre-disposition. Skepticism, I would argue, is generally a good thing. And if skepticism is the critical point of conservativism, than it is a good thing. But skepticism has it’s limit, at some point, you must make a decision to either do something or not do something (or alternatively, to do something else).

Prudence and reason should be guides. But the ultimate goal should be progress.

Therein, again, lies the problem for Stop! conservatives. History is not done, it marches on, leaving those who stood athwart it with tire tracks on their chests.

Now, all that said, the political conservative movement has lost its way. It is out of ideas. And politics, particularly in America, is the business of ideas. So a trip to the wilderness, in order to do some soul searching, isn’t a bad idea. But there needs to be a focus not only on results, but on the process. I’ve little confidence in the “leaders” of the conservative movement to figure that out.

I have no opinions

I want to have an opinion on something, anything, really. But I got nothing. Nothing about Obama. Nothing about McCain. Nothing about the Dodgers, Lakers, or even the NFL Draft. I just got nothing.

Oh well.

And They’re Not Even Going to See It Coming

I’m going to tell you right now, Barack Obama is the next president of the United States.

He is going to win in a landslide.

No. Wait, that’s not right.

Obama is going to win in a land-fucking-slide. I’m talking Reagan-beating-the-holy-hell-out-of-Mondale-looks-close-by-comparison landslide.

On a chilly day in November, some on the right are going to wake up and say something along the lines of, “I just don’t get how he won. Nobody I know voted for him.”

And the good Prof. Hewitt will be among them puzzled by this.

If you really think that the answer that Obama gives to the question about Ayers (side note: I have a degree in political science and a law degree, I know more about 20th century American history than 85% of the population, and I have no idea who this guy is) was a bad answer, you have been living in a damn cave. Seriously, you think, “He lives in my neighborhood, I’ve talked to him a few times, but he’s not an advisor and he hasn’t endorsed me, so why should I renounce him?” is a bad answer to a stupid question, then you have no business commenting on politics.

Here’s the thing about Obama, he’s different. He’s not someone tied up in the vitriol of the last 30 years. He doesn’t have to run on the ghosts of former presidents (the GOP has Reagan, the Dems have FDR, Hillary has Bill), he is actually running as himself. He doesn’t want to be the next (fill in the blank), he wants to be the first Barack Obama.

That distinguishes him from almost every other politician I’ve seen in my life time. The one person he does remind me of is Reagan… but in a different way. Reagan came to politics late in life, he was already comfortable with who he was. Obama, on the other hand, is coming to it rather early in life (he’s only in his 40s), but he’s confident about who he is and what he wants to do.

McCain doesn’t have that. McCain got the nomination for a couple of reasons. First, and it’s amazing that so many have over looked this, it’s his turn: the GOP almost always goes with the guy when it’s his turn, very rarely do we take someone out of turn, and it’s usually a disaster (see: Bush, George W.). Second, the field was horrific this year: there was no heir apparent (not that it would have mattered), no one actually seemed to connect with voters, and none seemed to have the testicular fortitude to say the current president has been less than stellar. Third, he ultimately won by default.

But the last 8 years have broken McCain, he watched the perfect opportunity to be a great president get pissed away by a half-wit legacy. Now he just wants his one shot, but he knows he’s staring at the same fate as his beloved Barry Goldwater.

The difference, of course, is that the Goldwater campaign was the birth of the conservative movement, the McCain campaign will be its funeral march. There’s a certain symmetry to that, beginning and ending with the blow out of a Senator from the great State of Arizona.

But mark my words, on the second Wednesday of November, a lot of “conservatives” are going to be beside themselves that the Republic decided that Obama was the right guy, and that it wasn’t even close.

The Truth About Small Towns

It’s strange, these days, I don’t follow a lot of the news. I read a couple of blogs, but am basically wrapped up in my own life and work. But this little deal about Obama’s recent comments on small towns is quite interesting to me. The good Prof. Bainbridge has a nice little round up (and more importantly the commentary that I want to jump off from).

Cities and towns, are in some ways, organic creatures. Much like people, communities can choose to grow, mature, change… they can choose to improve themselves. Or, they can choose to cling to a past that is not going to come back, and have a bitter, closed off life – think of the high school jock that never quite got over being the star of the football team and prom king, but never found a calling after high school.

Every big city started off as a village, became a town, and eventually developed into a full fledged city. Even in the suburbs, we’ve seen growth, change, and eventually an acceptance that it’s not a rural community any more (I think mainly, of my home town of Yorba Linda, California and the political mess it found itself in during the mid-90s expansion). Some small towns are content to remain small towns, and that is fine.

But it is folly to believe that it can be what it always was. All those factory jobs that have left are not coming back. Even if the factory were to open back up, it would likely be automated, one guy would do the jobs that 30 would have done in the old days. For those who have known no other way, I can understand the bitterness, but I don’t have to accept it.

In fact, I can call bullshit on it.

If you aren’t learning, you ain’t living. If you ain’t living, you’re dying.

I doubt that the federal, state, or local government can do anything to get the small towns learning and living again; because, quite frankly, if the towns wanted to living, they’d be trying to fix themselves. Instead, they wave as their young and talented leave (only to return for holidays, weddings, and funerals); and cling to a past that is gone.

While Obama may be sympathetic to the plight of small towns, I am not.

You want something done, do it yourself.