Barack And Roll

Barack Obama continues to roll on.  Three more victories tonight. 

We Are But Warriors For The Working Day

Peter Lawler has posted his comments given at our event in Atlanta this past Wednesday.  Entitled "The Warrior and The Preacher," Peter presents an argument regarding the virtues and the vices of John McCain's consistent appeal to martial virtue.  Peter gives a defense of manly honor, but recognizes that it must be tempered by a healthy respect for marital virtue and the good of the common life. 

No Republican can win who doesn’t both inspire us—at least some—with the warrior’s greatness and defends and encourages the virtue required for most people to live well in our economically and especially psychologically tough times. So my advice to nominee McCain is to really learn from the preacher, or to really understand why you need to stop disrespecting the strange and wonderful lives of peace- and people-loving Americans stuck with virtue and both homeless and at home in their country.

I largely endorse Peter's argument.  I have only this bone to pick. Peter writes:

We conservatives have to admit that Tocqueville and Hayek were wrong, or at least not completely right. We’re not slouching toward socialism or soft despotism anymore. Individuals haven’t surrendered concern for their personal futures to some schoolmarmish nanny state; they’re in many ways stuck with being more future-oriented than ever.

Peter argues that Americans are more alone than ever, writing, "All their safety nets are collapsing: private pensions, public pensions, unions, corporate loyalty, marital fidelity, the care-giving provided by families, and so forth." This, in my opinion, is precisely why Americans more and more turn to government to take up the functions once performed by those very groups.  We yearn for safety.  Health care safety.  Job safety.  Retirement safety.  Government also frees us to live our lives free of responsibility.  I don't have to save for the future.  The government will do it for me through Social Security.  I don't have to raise or provide for my kids.  The government will do it for me in the schools and through social welfare.  I don't have to buy my own health insurance.  The government will give it to me.  I am not responsible for taking care of my elderly parents.  The government will do it for me. 

Peter is not fond of libertarianism.  He calls it "creeping and creepy."  But I think he is mistaken in that the the liberated individual doesn't necessarily mean less government.  The autonomous individual has only the market and the state as means of providing for his needs.  He recognizes he is not really self-sufficient, yet the market is too unpredictable to provide for his needs. The government remains as the only option for collective action. 

This coincides with social libertarianism (or libertinism).  As Tocqueville writes of the soft despotic regime:

It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. 

This same regime, Tocqueville writes, "facilitates their pleasures."  It allows people, like undisciplined children, to indulge every passion, satiate every sense, to experience pleasure without responsibility.  That is a regime in which virtue defined as moderation is absent. 

In our discussion in Atlanta Peter argued that the soft despotic regime is impossible because we cannot afford it.  Agreed, it is ultimately unaffordable absent serious demographic changes.  But just because the people cannot afford soft despotism doesn't mean they don't want it and cannot get it by passing the cost on to future generations.  Indeed, that may be the ultimate corruption, dooming future generations (in fact barely even producing future generations) so we can live the life of perpetual childhood.   Affordability, or lack thereof, of the welfare state did not stop us from adding to it recently with Medicare Plan B.   The fact that we cannot afford to expand the S-CHIP program well into the middle class is not preventing many people from advocating just that. I don't think soft despotism depends on actuarial analysis.

Despite this one difference, read the whole piece, if only for this line: "if our evangelicals were really traditional their churches wouldn’t be so ugly and their music so bad."

 

Scenes From Aberdeen Cracker Barrel

Here are some highlights from the Aberdeen Cracker Barrel.  This includes districts 2 and 3, which means Senators Al Hoerth and Jim Hundstad and Representatives Al Novstrup, Dave Novstrup, Burt Elliott and Paul Dennert. 

Al Hoerth is upset with how things are going with the TransCanada pipeline.  The 2 cent per barrel tax on the pipeline failed.  He also argued the pipeline does not represent economic growth as the state will get little tax revenue from the project and once the pipeline is built it will only support three full-time workers in the state. 

An inordinate amount of time was spent on the "guns on campus" issue.  Dave Novstrup argued that the bill in question still allows campuses to regulate guns on site; it simply prevents the Board of Regents from instituting a blanket ban. 

My pet subject of laptops in schools came up.  Al Novstrup stated that he didn't think the state should make laptops a priority, although local districts are free do to so, and he wasn't convinced laptops do much to improve education.  Dave Novstrup stated that we should concentrate on basics of reading and writing rather than promoting the kind of computer slang (my term, not his) that goes along with computers.  Burt Elliott noted that he understands one of the most popular hangouts for high school kids in Watertown is the public library.  The students like the library as they can get on the wireless network and play games on the computers given to them to improve their education. 

There was plenty of discussion on House Bills 1005 and 1006, the so-called productivity method of taxing ag land.  Rep. Dennert and Sen. Hundstad seem to like these bills with Al Novstrup strongly opposed.  Indeed, Novstrup called the HB 1005 "the worst bill I've ever seen" in the legislature.  Hundstad made what to me was an odd defense of the "productivity" method of valuating land.  He argued, correctly, if there are three houses and the ones on either side sell for $100,000 that doesn't mean the one is the middle is also worth $100,000.  That middle house might be nicer on the inside, better kept up with more improvements. Or it may have been a crack house.  So sale value does not necessarily give you the correct assessment of "true value."  But Hundstad seems willing to swap one distorted method for another.  Surely sale value is not the entirety of a piece of land's value, but neither is productivity.  It is both, which is the genius of Al Novstrup's proposal I discussed here.

It won't surprise you that everyone was in favor of open government.  The burden of proof should be on the government to show why some information shouldn't be public, not on the citizens to show why something should be public.

They talked about more stuff, but that is the upshot of it.  We did learn that Burt Elliott was once detained by the Secret Service, but that's another story.      

"My Only Mistake Is Not Realizing How Dumb You People Are"

Bill Clinton learns a lesson, kinda:

Former President Clinton says he's learned a valuable lesson from the dustup over his remarks on the campaign trail—he can promote his wife's presidential candidacy, but he's not free to defend her.

Clinton also said that everything he said in South Carolina about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was "factually accurate," but a lot that has been said about what he said is "factually inaccurate."

"I think the mistake that I made is to think that I was a spouse like any other spouse who could defend his candidate," Clinton said, referring to his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is waging a hard-fought contest with Obama for the Democratic nomination.

"I think I can promote Hillary but not defend her because I was president. I have to let her defend herself or have someone else defend her," Clinton said in an interview with NBC News as he was campaigning in Portland, Maine, Thursday. (snip)

"A lot of the things that were said were factually inaccurate," Clinton said. "I did not ever criticize Senator Obama personally in South Carolina. ... But I think whenever I defend her, I, A, risk being misquoted, and, B, risk being the story. I don't want to be the story."

This is Bill Clinton personified.  His "mistake" is that he didn't realize that other people would make mistakes in assessing the things he says.  He is ready to concede that not everyone is as wonderful as he is.  What a guy. 

The Indianapolis Lincoln

Not half bad. 

Unfortunately, I noticed tonight at Nickey Blaine's that, while Lincoln's portrait is on the right side of the bar, on the left side is that White Obama JFK. 

It's The Sun, Stupid

More speculation that global temperature is more related to sun activity than human activity. 

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Veep It Up

There is little in life more tedious than Vice-President speculation, and given the length of time between John McCain's presumptive victory and the Republican convention this year will be worse than ever.  So let's add to the tedium.  Here is a Star-Tribune article on Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and his relationship with John McCain.  Jay Reding has more speculation here, although he notably omits John Thune and Mark Sanford. 

There is some speculation that Mike Huckabee is now running for the VP slot.  Although McCain is notoriously unpredictable, Huckabee strikes one as a poor choice.  McCain is already considered suspect by the right.  Huckabee only adds to that suspicion.  In addition, Huckabee has a long string of strange statements and positions (such as advocating putting AIDS patients in quarantine and not knowing that a new National Intelligence Estimate had been released on Iran).  There are many better choices than Huckabee. 

A Super Debriefing

I have returned from Atlanta where I participated in an event at Oglethorpe University on "The Future of Liberalism and Conservatism."  See the skillful summation by our host, Prof. Joe Knippenberg.  I think a good time was had by all, starting with excellent presentations by some local undergraduates and culminating in a presentation by Jonah Goldberg based on his best-selling book.  Just because I can, I'll link to fellow participants Jay Cost, who runs the HorseRaceBlog over at RCP, and Matt Franck who blogs over at NRO's Bench Memos when not corrupting the youth of Virginia.  Matt says of Jonah's book, "I can tell you that if a better book is published by a political scientist in America in 2008, I'd be very, very surprised."  That's not exactly setting the bar high, but I take Matt's point. 

A lot went on at the event, but as readers are likely most interested in the presidential race and Super Tuesday results I'll restrict my comments to those subjects for now.  Most participants, but not all, were of a general conservative Republican stripe, but these are a bunch of smart and serious people and more than able to overcome their biases.  I think I can make this summarization.
1. Hillary and Bill Clinton are not popular.  They are seen as mendacious and grasping. 
2. Obama commands respect.  He certainly has the ability to generate excitement. 
3. Republicans will rally around McCain in the end. 
4.  But there is concern that McCain has not surrounded himself with the most competent advisers. 
5. There was surprising (to me) respect for Huckabee. 

As you by now know Romney has dropped out.  His loss in California was the clincher, I believe.  This leaves McCain and Huck on the GOP side.  Is it fair to say it is now over?  This is one strange year so one hesitates, but if the fat lady is not singing she is certainly warming up backstage. 

While I was gone, the RCJ ran this piece before Super Tuesday results were in.  It quotes my favorite political scientist:

Northern State University political science profession (sic) Jon Schaff said that system and the current competitiveness of the Democratic race will prolong the battle. But he doubts it will turn South Dakota into a presidential deal maker.

“It’s unlikely that South Dakota’s primary is going to be a factor in settling things,” he said. “I think it’s going to be done by then. We’ll know a lot more about that in 36 hours.”

But that didn’t mean he was ready to make a prediction on the Democrats, he said.

“Beats me. If you put a gun to my head, I’d probably say it’s still Hillary Clinton’s to lose,” Schaff said. “She’s got the best ground game. But Uncle Momentum is on Barack Obama’s side.

First, I can't believe Kevin ran with the "Uncle Mo'" quote. I apologize to a traumatized nation. But to the point, why did I go with Clinton as the favorite?  Hillary Clinton has the traditional Democratic coalition and is running a traditional interest group campaign.  She is consciously reaching out to various members of the Democratic coalition and trying to patch that into a workable majority. I think that strategy, coupled with a solid organization, makes her tough to beat.  Note that while Obama won more states on Tuesday, Clinton won the big states, sometimes convincingly (e.g., New York and California).  If the Democrats followed the Republican system of allocating delegates (winner-take-all or, in the case of California, based on congressional district), Clinton would have a much bigger delegate lead than she currently has (about 100 delegates, including super delegates).  By my quick count (feel free to check my math), if all Super Tuesday states had been winner-take-all for the Democrats (admittedly, California isn't even winner-take-all for Republicans), Clinton would have won 1112 delegates to Obama's 626.   Note that I am basing this on the CNN site that mixes in super delegates with its totals, so these numbers are a bit rough.  Even taking these as rough numbers, we can fairly say that Clinton would have basically doubled up Obama in a winner-take-all method.  Only proportional allocation of delegates is keeping Obama alive.

Still, clearly the wind is at Obama's back.  He has the endorsements and, more importantly, the money coming in.  As Clinton looks more and more vulnerable, especially head-to-head against John McCain, Obama looks better and better.   Clinton's new fondness for debates is the sign of a candidate who think she is behind. 

Will South Dakota actually matter?  I continue to believe that at some point one of these candidates will break away and cause the other one to concede for the good of the party.   But for the good of our state and this blog, I certainly hope that things are still unsettled in June.

As it's been a long day and I am sick as a dog I will talk about why campaigns matter at a later date. 

Romney Out?

Time reports that Romney may give a concession speech at CPAC today.

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey is liveblogging from CPAC today.  Just keep scrolling.  He'll also be talking about CPAC on his BTR show later today, so be sure to tune in.

UPDATE:  Watching CPAC on Fox News's live stream.  Laura Ingraham is introducing Romney right now.  She's really hitting McCain hard.

UPDATE (11:47):  Romney is taking the stage right now, who Ingraham introduced as "the conservative's conservative."  He's getting a huge welcome.

UPDATE (11:49):  He's noting McCain's lead over him...

UPDATE (11:50):  Without conservative principles, America could become the "France of the 21st century -- still a great nation, but not the world leader, not a superpower."

UPDATE (11:59): Gave some time to the culture warriors on the Right.  His first policy statement in the speech calls for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage.  Now he's talking about the need for energy independence.

UPDATE (12:03): Talking up defense now.  Criticizes President Clinton's "peace dividend": "We got the dividend, but not the peace."

UPDATE (12:05): This is a fantastic speech -- he's energetic and inspiring.  Hard to see he's planning to drop out.

UPDATE (12:07): Just announced he's suspending his bid.  Got some negative heat from the crowd.  Does not want Obama or Clinton to have a shot at winning and feels he "needs to stand aside in this time of war for our party and our country."  He wants to "do whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq," and that's his reason for withdrawing.  Backing out to ensure victory.  I'll be back in class by the time McCain takes the stage, so keep an eye on Captain Ed's blog for updates.

UPDATE:  Mark Hemingway:  "Just finished watching Romney's terrific speech, and I bet a lot of people are wishing that he displayed more of that inspirational quality and verve in the campaign."  Also, The Corner has the video of Romney's exit.

SDP Jazz Note: Indianapolis, Stanley Crouch, and Joe Henderson

I have decided that Indianapolis is an altogether civilized place.  Or at least it is when you are attending a Liberty Fund colloquium, and they put you up in the Conrad Hilton Hotel.  When I got out of the car, I identified myself to the gentleman who opened the door for me.  By the time I reached the front desk, no fewer than five people had addressed me by name.  My bathroom has a flat screen TV.  This is luxury and status, if only for three days.  I am here to discuss Socrates and Jesus with a handful of scholars.  I am not sure who I am in more trouble with.

Just off the hotel is a Borders book store.  I picked up a copy of Stanley Crouch's collection: Considering Genius: Writings on Jazz.  I have admired Crouch since I was in grad school.  He belongs to the Wynton Marsalis/Albert Murray school of jazz criticism that underwrote most of Ken Burns Jazz series.  I spent a pleasant hour reading about Miles Davis in Blaine's, around the corner from the hotel.  I note that along with the dark lighting (I had a book light) and beautiful furniture, there was a portrait of Abraham Lincoln over the bar.

I also picked up a CD by Joe Henderson at Borders, Page One, which I am listening to as I write this post.  There is a DVD/CD player under the TV.  Kenny Dorham plays trumpet, with McCoy Tyner on piano.  It got five stars in the Penguin Guide. I know, because I pulled a copy off the shelf as I combed the CDs.  It's worth all four stars.  Mostly Dorham and Henderson trade solos.  But there is plenty of room for Tyner to say whether he liked 'em or not.  He liked 'em.   

And I like Indianapolis just fine, having been here for all of six hours.  There is a magnificent sculpture in the center of the city, under which lies a Civil War museum.  I hope to visit it before I leave.  The fellow who drove me in from the airport thought it was cold.  It was in the thirties.  I got to tell him what cold was. 

The Gipper

Today, Ronald Reagan would have been 97 years old had he not passed way in 2004.  His memory remains strong among many Americans.  He is remembered for his sunny optimism, for championing "a great new beginning" for America grounded on our Founding principles, transforming a burdensome government, and sustained by the belief that America's best days lie ahead.  The debates over his legacy will continue, but the impact of his leadership on history is indisputable.  In a time when fate cast a dark shadow over the nation, Reagan provided history with a bright vision of freedom and positive days ahead.

Super Confusing Tuesday 2

As I suggested last night, Clinton won the day on the Democratic side.  She took California by 10%.  However, Obama won a number of impressive state victories.  Moreover, a number of victories on both sides were by impressive margins.  A split party with no end in sight.  Here is Adam Nagourney of the New York Times:

 

On the Democratic side, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama seem likely to continue their state-by-state struggle, after a night of tit-for-tat division of states and delegates, though Mrs. Clinton claimed the formidable prize of California.

On the Republican side it is a bit clearer.  Romney placed, doing better than it looked early in the night.  Huckabee is once again the wonder kid.  But McCain still comes out on top, with a lot of big state wins.

But after months of disarray, Republicans seemed closer to coalescing around Senator John McCain of Arizona. As Mr. McCain logged victories in populous states, including California, and added more delegates to his count, he moved nearer his goal of wrapping up his competition with Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. A third Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, underlined Mr. Romney’s weakness by posting a series of victories, in a performance that highlighted the discomfort social conservatives have with the field.

If the Republican brand wasn't in so much trouble, I would predict a GOP win in November.  But it is and I can't. 

Super Confusing Tuesday

The Big surprise on the Republican side is the surge of Mike Huckabee at Mitt Romney's expense.  As of now, McCain has won New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona, Connecticut, and Oklahoma.  That includes a lot of delegate rich, winner take all territory.  Huckabee has won Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, and West Virginia.  Romney won Massachusetts and, well, Utah.  I think McCain will still emerge from tonight as the clear winner, but it's hardly a sweep.  On the other hand, Huckabee has all but taken Romney out.  Unless, of course, Mitt ends up landing California. 

The Democratic side is stranger.  Obama is clearly surging, but it is a mixed bag overall.  Senator Clinton nailed New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.  And she won them all by pretty wide margins.  Senator Obama won Illinois, Georgia, Alabama, Connecticut, Minnesota, Delaware and Kansas. His margins are mostly thinner than hers.   I think that the delegate count is likely to be indecisive.  It will be interesting to see who wins the total popular vote.

Comment: both parties are split.  The Clintons have clearly alienated not only Black voters but Democratic activists and the party elite.  Obama is killing her in the caucuses, where the latter are dominant.  But the sleazy road may well get the Clintons to the nomination.  If she holds on to win California decisively, the day will be hers. 

History Blogging

Ralph Brauer over at Progressive Historians has an intriguing post entitled "The Paradox of Ronald Reagan: His First Inaugural."  Also, it has been quite some time since I've noted the History Carnival.  The latest can be found at Historia i Media. 

UPDATE:  Jeremy Young also of Progressive Historians has a great post on "Blogging and Peer Review."  I had planned to write about the topic myself recently, but Jeremy does a fantastic job of explaining how blogs threaten the gatekeeping elites in academia and how history bloggers deserve credit for the historical outreach they provide.

Super Tuesday Blogging

Pajamas Media has some on-the-ground reporting in the states involved with the voting today.

UPDATE:  Mike Huckabee has won West Virginia.  He apparently received some help from McCain.  Plus, reports of voting glitches in California.

UPDATE:  Professor Bainbridge and Jason Pye are liveblogging the results as they come in.

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey is liveblogging Minnesota caucus results.

UPDATE:  With 97% of precincts reporting, Mitt Romney has won the North Dakota GOP caucus.  With 31% of precincts reporting, Romney leads McCain and Huckabee in Minnesota, 39-22-21%.

UPDATE:  Looks like I was wrong earlier when I suggested that today wouldn't clear things up -- the rest of the contest may come down to Clinton and McCain.  Fox News is projecting Clinton and McCain have won California, and for both parties that's a biggie.  I had expected Romney to do much better than he did today.  Does this mean Romney is finished?  Based on delegate counts, I would submit that Romney still has an opportunity, although McCain clearly controls the race.  If my quick number surveying is correct, McCain should come out around 500 delegates tonight, Romney with about 200, and Huckabee around 200. 

UPDATE:  Just found the delegate numbers, which are coming in live at ABC News.  As of 11:42 p.m. CST, McCain has 489,  Romney 173, and Huckabee 138.

And We're Off...

In twenty-four states the polls have opened in the largest primary day in American history:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made a raspy appeal for support yesterday in her race against Sen. Barack Obama, even as her aides warned that the Democratic presidential contest will probably drag on for months after today's Super Tuesday voting. Republican Mitt Romney, meanwhile, predicted he would "surprise" those who were expecting Sen. John McCain to be anointed as the GOP nominee in the busiest single day of primaries and caucuses in presidential nominating history.

"I am definitely the underdog," Romney declared during a final day of furious campaigning that included a hastily arranged trip to delegate-rich California.

With 24 states in play, the leading candidates in both parties scoured targeted states for votes in the hours before the polls were to open. McCain, after a year of unexpected twists that left his candidacy all but dead late last year, hoped to clinch the Republican nomination by carrying California and a swath of Northeastern states.

Democrats were bracing for a less decisive outcome. Advisers to Clinton (N.Y.), once the clear front-runner, were stoic as they envisioned a "lengthy process" that could continue for months, possibly through the Democratic National Convention in late August. Clinton officials also confirmed that she had raised about $13 million in January, compared with $32 million Obama raised in the same period.

My own sense is that things won't be cleared up much today.  I think New York, New Jersey, and Arizona will go to McCain, but Romney has a good chance of taking Missouri and California.  Success out West for Romney could give him some extra time.  Huckabee will probably take the South.  It might be McCain's night, but Romney certainly won't be out of the picture.  For the Dems, its even harder to say.  I suspect that Hillary will win by a narrow margin today, which will keep things wide open.  As Chris Bowers notes in his analysis, "It can no longer be avoided: super delegates will determine the Democratic Presidential nominee this year."

Pajamas Media has a large roundup of Super Tuesday coverage.  Updates will be posted here at SDP throughout the day, so be sure to tune in.  I'll be interested to see what happens in Minnesota and North Dakota today since they will serve as a good judge as to what's on the minds of Midwestern voters.

UPDATE:  Closing times:  Polls in Georgia close at 7:00 p.m. EST.  They close at 11:00 p.m. EST in California and 1:30 a.m. EST in Alaska.

UPDATE II:  Confessions of a young Hillary supporter:  "I'm a young male Democrat, and I support ... Hillary Clinton. I may be the loneliest man at Georgetown University, where I'm practically a social pariah. Supporting Hillary on a college campus this year is like being a Yankees fan at a Red Sox game, a Barry Manilow lover at a Radiohead concert."

And Now For Something Completely Different

Most of us worry about what will happen to us in our elder years, if we get there.  Here is a story from the British Guardian that will not bring comfort.

Allan Chappelow, a distinguished English scholar, was targeted at his ramshackle home in north London by a foreign gang, rather than Wang Yam, a 46-year-old bankrupt accused of stealing Chappelow's identity and raiding his bank accounts, the court heard.

Let me unpack that for you.  The unfortunate octogenarian writer, Mr. Chappelow, was apparently being victimized by Mr. Wang Yam, who was siphoning off his savings.  And then he was attacked by a "foreign gang" in his home, an apparently isolated incident.

Chappelow was found buried beneath a 4ft high pile of his own page proofs from Yale University Press. His face and head had been smashed with a heavy implement. Blood was spattered 4ft to 5ft up the walls and his clothed torso was covered in wax and burns. The killer or killers smoked cigarettes afterwards, the court heard, leaving DNA that was not Yam's.

There is something disturbingly poetic about that pile of page proofs.  A good thing for Mr. Yam that the killers were smokers.  He is luckier than his victim, Mr. Chappelow.  What did the latter do, in his years as a writer to so anger the fates?  I rather suspect that the answer is nothing.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it. 

Super Tuesday: Pre-game Analysis

Some of my good friends lament the hype that goes with the Superbowl.  Far from sharing their funk, I think it's a shame that Super Tuesday doesn't have it's own award-winning commercials and lavish half-time show.  Couldn't we be entertained by Bob Dylan standing on a stage that looks like an electoral map of America, between the time that the polls close in the Central and Western time zones?  But of course the analogy is hardly apt.  This is the playoffs, not the grand game. 

We are about to see the results of the massive primary front-loading that twenty-four states have indulged in.  It is hardly a good thing, but neither has it been a disaster.  The nomination process is about coalition forming, and the various factions within each party have had time enough to dither.  Now we will see them move in real time. 

The Republican side is easier to read.  By the time Fox News and CNN sign off tomorrow night, the Senator from Arizona is likely to be crowned John the Inevitable, if not John the De Facto.  This is so for two reason: one is that he is way ahead in the polls; the other is that Republican nominating process is better designed.  McCain is, of necessity, building his coalition from the outside in.  He has so far captured everything but the conservative core of the party.  Now the core is in the position of having to decide whether they want McCain, or Clinton, or Obama, or Clinton/Obama.  There will always be the temptation to vote for purity in defeat (Mitt Romney), but that would be unusual for Republicans. And there is the no small matter that 6 of 9 Supreme Court justices will be, well, as old as McCain.  I am guessing that the core takes its place behind McCain. 

Consider that if McCain wins New York even by a little (I think he will), he gets all of its 87 pledged delegates.   The same is true of Missouri (58),  Arizona (53), New Jersey (52),  West Virginia and Connecticut (30 each), and Montana (25).  Let's give Utah (36) to Romney.  Other Republican states have more complex systems, but most of them do what primaries should do: they force the voters to make either/or decisions, and not seven of one and four of another. 

The Democrats are playing different ball. Senator Clinton entered the contest thinking that she was in line for the nomination, and that she had paid her dues.  She had reason to think so.  Moving to New York, where the Clintons finally bought a house; winning and defending a Senate seat; these were steps in a long range plan.  But the Democratic electorate doesn't put the same weight on these things, except when it is afraid of losing (Google John Kerry/Howard Dean).  This time the Democrats think they are going to win (with good reason), and so they have the leisure to make a choice. Barack Obama gave them one, and one that tugged at all their heart strings.  The Clintons responded by trying to split their own party, and they are now waiting to see how much of it remains on their side. 

Obama is clearly surging (word of the decade!), pulling even with Ms. C. in national polls.   But even if he pulls ahead, Democratic primaries distribute their votes proportionally.  In state where one candidate has a clear advantage, the other will still get a lot of delegates.  Moreover, where delegates are alloted to Congressional districts and then allocated to candidates proportionally, even a candidate pulling 60% of the vote may get only half the delegates. Whether Sen. Clinton or Senator Obama wins the popular vote tomorrow, each will have a lot of delegates. 

The thing to pay attention to tomorrow is the delegate count.  So far Senator Obama has 34 to Senator Clinton's 21.  To win, someone must have 2,025.  Senator McCain has 89 to Governor Romney's 27, with 1,191 needed to win. 

My God Is The DNC

Joe Knippenberg gives a thoughtful analysis of Barack Obama's faith. 

For him, religion is principally a source of reformist energy, to be checked in its excesses by a rationalist, non-majoritarian judiciary. The reformist energy that supports and promotes the agenda of the Democratic Party is to be welcomed and harnessed. Those who have other ideas in mind can be treated with a disarming respect, as conversation partners who can be persuaded but won’t be permitted to persuade. Or they can be criticized and resisted as irrational, divisive, and unconstitutional, not to say hypocritical and un-Godly.

They do worship an awesome God in the blue states.  And He unfailingly votes Democratic.

Recall that just the other day I suggested that one cannot find salvation or ultimate meaning through politics.  Barack Obama seems to disagree. 

The Primary Goofiness of the Democrats

I sometimes think that the Democratic Party is an organization created to discredit the very idea of reform.  Consider proportional representation in primaries, something that distinguishes most Democratic contests from most Republican ones.  Sounds rather democratic (small "d"), doesn't it?  But as Slate points out, it means that a lot of votes cast in various elections districts won't "count" [i.e., won't make a difference one way or another in the outcome]. 

In California, each district has between three and seven delegates at stake. So say a district has four delegates. Unless there’s a landslide victory there, then each candidate--Clinton and Obama--will get two of those delegates. In a two-way race, a candidate has to get at least 62.5 percent of the vote—halfway between ½ and ¾, for you math buffs—to win a third delegate. Or say there are six delegates at stake. Then you’d have to win a little more than 58 percent to get more delegates than your opponent. As a result, it’s almost always a tie. It’s only in the districts with an odd number of delegates that one candidate is guaranteed to win more delegates than the other.

So, in a tight race like Clinton vs. Obama, most if not all even-numbered districts are likely to result in a draw—and therefore effectively not count. Click here to see a chart of how many delegates each district gets. As you can see, 32 of the state’s 53 districts have an even number of delegates. In the other 21 districts, the winner will only win one more delegate than the loser. (Again, unless it’s a landslide.) 

Democrats like the idea of proportional representation.  This system is said to avoid "distorting" the popular will.  But of course any electoral or legislative process distorts the popular will, if by that you mean that the outcome is different from the input.  If 9 in 10 people vote for candidate X and proposition Z, that is a 100% victory for 90% the folks.  Votes always represent the victory of one block of voters over another; they are not supposed to be reflections of preferences.

The Democrats realize that they would have a problem if proportional representation virtually guaranteed a split convention, as it would in a close race.  So in California, to stick with the big example,  241 of its 441 delegates are chosen by the districts, with each districts delegates allocated proportionally.  As even-member districts are likely to split fifty-fifty, and so have no effect on the outcome, candidates focus only on the odd-membered districts.  A whomping 129 delegates are allocated proportionally to the state-wide winner (dwarfing the largely ineffective district vote), and 71 are unallocated super delegates, who can save the party in the end, in the event that Dennis Kucinich seems poised to act as a king maker.   So, having built all of this proportional representation into the system at the district level, they design it in such a way as to render it mostly ineffective; then they game the system at the state level to reverse any effects that proportional representation might have. This is the kind of system you get when you have no idea what you are trying to do with it. 

The Republicans seem to know this.  In California, the Republicans allocate 159 of 173 delegates to the various districts.  Each district gets three delegates.  Whoever wins at least a plurality of that district gets all three delegates.  This will increase the chance of a decisive winner emerging from Super Tuesday.  It will also mean that each of these districts will advance someone's total.  To help this along, 11 delegates pad the victory of whoever wins statewide, and three unpledged delegates go to help broker a convention in cases of a close tie.  It is a much more rational system, and gives genuine voice to voters at the district level. 

Another indication of the goofiness of the Democratic procedures is this chart, which breaks down the delegates from each district into females and males.  Its 121/120.

Party Purity Über Alles

William Kristol in this morning's New York Times:

This is an important moment for the conservative movement. Not because conservatives have some sort of obligation to fall in behind John McCain. They don’t. Those conservatives who can’t abide McCain are free to rally around Mitt Romney. And if McCain does prevail for the nomination, conservatives are free to sit out the election.

But I’d say this to them: When the primaries are over, if McCain has won the day, don’t sulk and don’t sit it out. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between a candidate who’s committed to winning in Iraq and a Democratic nominee who embraces defeat. Don’t tell us that it doesn’t matter if the next president voted to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, or opposed them. Don’t close your eyes to the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, or between resistance to big government and the embrace of it.

And don’t treat 2008 as a throwaway election. If a Democrat wins the presidency, he or she will almost certainly have a Democratic Congress to work with. That Congress will not impede a course of dishonorable retreat abroad. It won’t balk at liberal Supreme Court nominees at home. It won’t save the economy from tax hikes.

If, by contrast, McCain wins the presidency — and all the polls suggest he’d be the best G.O.P. bet to do so — he’ll be able to shape a strong American foreign policy, nominate sound justices and fight for parts of the conservative domestic agenda.

One might add a special reason that conservatives — and the nation — owe John McCain at least a respectful hearing. Only a year ago, we were headed toward defeat in Iraq. Without McCain’s public advocacy and private lobbying, President Bush might not have reversed strategy and announced the surge of troops in January 2007. Without McCain’s vigorous leadership, support for the surge in Congress would not have been sustained in the first few months of 2007. So: No McCain, no surge. No surge, failure in Iraq, a terrible setback for America — and, as it happens, no chance for a G.O.P. victory in 2008.

Some conservatives can close their eyes to all this. They can choose to stand aside from history while having a temper tantrum. But they should consider that the American people might then choose not to invite them back into a position of responsibility for quite a while to come.

Republic of Lakotah

Mr. Heidelberger has the latest developments (or lack thereof) on Russell Means's attempt to secede and form the Republic of Lakotah.

123 Meme

Tagged by Dan.  The rules:

1.  Pick up the nearest book (of at least 123 pages).
2.  Open the book to page 123.
3.  Find the fifth sentence.
4.  Post the next three sentences.
5.  Tag five people.

Nearest book is Roger W. Lotchin's The Bad City in the Good War.  From page 123:

The war even eroded the near monopoly of the San Francisco Scavengers Protective Association.  A highly prized blue-collar elite, most scavengers descended from inhabitants of the Genoan village of Lorsica.  Since the military took so many men, the group had to be opened up, first to other Italians and then to Hispanics.

My five tags:

• Pat
• Todd
• Jon
• Ken
• Cory

Have at it!

Giant Upset

Well, 18-1 -- not quite perfect.  Fantastic fourth quarter in the Super Bowl tonight, if not the best Super Bowl game I've ever seen (admittedly, that's a fairly narrow pool of games).  A big congratulations to the Giants are in order, and that third-down conversion with a minute left will go down as a remarkable event in NFL history.  (I should also note that the House episode afterwards was excellent.)

Right Again

I knew the Giants would score 17. 

Adelstein For Legislature

I understand that Stan Adelstein is passing around petitions for another run at the legislature.  Any more info feel free to pass it on to schaffsdp at gmail.com. 

Suicide Of The West

In his insightful post on Japanese culture and the loss of belief, Prof. Blanchard concludes:

It would be nice to imagine that the Japanese crisis is a mere foreign curiosity.  But in fact, the pathologies that are in evidence there are present in all developed nations, including our own.  This is something worth worrying about.

I am sure many readers have heard about a potential suicide club in Wales (although this report sheds some doubt on how organized this all is).  If you follow the first link, you find this analysis from some locals as to why their youth might be acting in such desperation:

"Nobody really knows what to do," [Robert French] said. "Society is disconnected. We're used to suicides in our village. People do the business from a big tree near the chips shop or jump off the train. It seems everybody knows a family that's been affected."

He said illegal drugs have become so common that they can be obtained simply by calling a taxi service whose drivers will deliver them. This has contributed to the increased suicides, he said.

"The seven who have killed themselves are just the tip," he said. "They're the ones who have succeeded. Many others have tried and that goes unreported. Nobody is going to be untouched by this."

As Allan Bloom once wrote, "Isolation, a sense of lack of profound contact with other human beings, seems to be the disease of our times. We are lonely while living in society, with all the social needs for others yet unable to satisfy them."  Why are we unable to satisfy our social needs?  Perhaps Tocqueville said it best when he wrote, “In democratic societies each citizen is habitually busy with the contemplation of a very petty object, which is himself.”

Without going into mind-numbing detail, Tocqueville worried that the materialism, individualism and continuous pursuit of progress in democratic society would create a people isolated from one another as they contemplated only their material well-being and quixotically pursued self-sufficiency.  Tocqueville believed this would create a people with flat souls, their slavish devotion to equality as the sole good deadening their souls to anything the smacks of something higher, greater, noble. 

Tocqueville offered a series of remedies for this condition: a free press, free associations, strong local government.  He also offered religion.  Faith, Tocqueville suggested, helps man see that this world is not perfectible.  Religion draws man outside himself and outside his times in contemplation of that which is divine and eternal.  Faith, according to Tocqueville, benefits from democratic government in that, assuming no state church, faith succeeds on its own merits rather than being propped up by the state.  But, he continues, in reciprocity faith gives democracy a nobility and purpose it would not otherwise have.  By providing a necessary morality and limitation on the use of freedom, religion makes democratic society more humane.  As Tocqueville puts it, "Liberty regards religion as its companion in all its battles and its triumphs, as the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims. It considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom."

In Tocqueville's philosophy, religion serves as a counter to faith in the twin dogmas of progress and equality.  People will have their religious faith, he seems to say, it is only a question whether that faith will be in themselves or in the divine.

If we don't need specifically Christian faith, we certainly need Christian morality, Tocqueville believes, which must be bolstered by some kind of religious faith.  This challenging piece at First Things on the "new atheism" asks us to consider, with Nietzsche, whether Christian morality can survive without the Christian God.  Democratic nations, Tocqueville and Prof. Blanchard remind us, find it to their great advantage to have a strong faith in the divine to provide meaning to an otherwise meaningless materialist individualism.  One may attempt to find meaning or audacious hope through political salvation, but that is a fool's quest.  It is faith in the divine that feeds both hope and charity.  Democratic nations may find all three virtues, faith, hope, and charity, extremely useful, in addition to perhaps even being true. 

Super Sunday

Will the New England Patriots become the second undefeated champion in history today?  Or will the New York Giants extend their ten-game road winning streak and upset the Patriots perfect season?  Hopefully we'll have a competitive and close game today.  And what's the Super Bowl without drama, hype, and predictions?  Like Prof. Schaff warned, I wouldn't place money on my speculations.

For what its worth:  New England 32, Giants 21.  What's yours?

HEH:  Giants: 'We Almost Beat The Patriots Once, We Can Almost Beat Them Again'

Suicide Club 4: Japan Offs Itself

Back in the Roaring Eighties, Americans learned to be afraid of Japan.  Many books were written about how the Japanese, so much more hard working than Americans, would soon push us out of the world economy.  On my honeymoon I met a fellow who taught strategy at West Point.  He thought the Japanese, not the Russians, were the great threat of the future.  He was right by half.  But it did seem kinda like that at the time.  The Japanese auto industry was producing much better cars.  By way of disclosure, I should say that every car I have owned since has been made by a Japanese company.

But as often happens, we became concerned with the threat just at the moment it was about to collapse.  Japan went into recession in the early 90's, and hasn't ever really recovered.  That's the good news. The future of the Land of the Rising Sun looks altogether more dark.  The Washington Post has the news:

Fifteen years ago, Japan ranked fourth among the world's countries in gross domestic product per capita. It now ranks 20th. In 1994, its share of the world's economy peaked at 18 percent; in 2006, the number was below 10 percent.

The government acknowledged last month what has long been obvious to economists and foreign investors, if not to the Japanese public and many politicians. The minister of economic and fiscal policy, Hiroko Ota, told parliament that Japan could no longer be described as a "first-class" economy.

And that isn't even the bad news. 

Japan is still the world's second-largest economy, as measured by gross size, although the island nation has been surpassed by China in purchasing power. In coming decades, the economies of China and India will dwarf Japan's, according to many projections. By 2050, Japan's economy will be about the size of Indonesia's or Brazil's, according to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Japan's slide relative to other major economies is not a tabloid tale of suddenly squandered riches. It is rather an insidious petering out of growth, productivity and innovation -- and of political will to stop the slippage.

I pass on this news with no joy at all.  I became interested in Japanese culture as a teenager, when I studied Karate, watched Samurai movies, and read books on Zen Buddhism.  Today I practice zazen (sitting meditation) and read books by that Japanese Aquinas, Dogen.  I blog frequently on Japanese horror movies.  But the latter have given me some sense of the cultural crisis in that nation.

I posted back in  2006 on a J-Horror flick Suicide Club.  In that movie, waves of Japanese teenagers commit collective suicide as a final act of defiance against a nation that has lost interest in its future.  I drew a connection between the movie, and the astonishingly low birth rate in modern Japan.  Here again from the WaPo:

 

[Japan's economic] slide has dovetailed with another quietly insidious crisis -- the petering out of the population. Japan has the world's highest proportion of elderly people and the lowest proportion of children.

By 2050, population decline will have reduced economic growth to zero, according to the Japan Center for Economic Research. Seventy percent of the country's labor force will have disappeared.

The undertow is already being felt here. Supermarket and department store sales have declined for 11 consecutive years. Toyota now is arguably the world's largest carmaker, but sales of new cars of all brands in Japan peaked 18 years ago and have been falling steadily since then.

Consider the terrible impact of those words: "Seventy percent of the country's labor force will have disappeared."  If a nation is to have a future, someone had to make babies.  Almost no Japanese women, or men, are interested in that.  The Japanese are doing the demographic equivalent of plunging a short sword into the national belly. 

What explains the Japanese rush toward the precipice?  I will hazard a guess.  When the Japanese lost WWII, they lost their Divine Emperor.  In that person, all their national purpose was invested.  Since then, they have had nothing but their jobs and savings accounts to care about.  But if J-Horror has anything to teach us, it is that the vacuum left by the absence of God doesn't stay empty for long.  It is quickly reoccupied by demons.  In Suicide Club 3, I posted on the small-group suicides in Japan that have been possible because of the internet. 

It would be nice to imagine that the Japanese crisis is a mere foreign curiosity.  But in fact, the pathologies that are in evidence there are present in all developed nations, including our own.  This is something worth worrying about.