South Dakota Politics

Alcee Hastings

Sioux Falls blogger Jay Reding reports that Rep. Jane Harman is taking heat from left-wing bloggers for running against Judge Alcee Hastings, who wants to become chair of the House Intelligence Committee and who was impeached on bribery charges and removed from office in 1981.  We still have no word on whether Rep. Herseth supports Hastings or not.

Glenn Reynolds reports that opponents of Harman are spreading rumors about her and agrees with Reding: "I'll just note that, true or not, the Democrats don't seem to have waited long before descending into circular-firing-squad mode."

Nelson Shanks

Utterly by chance I wondered today into an exhibition of paintings by Nelson Shanks, at the Union Club in Philadelphia.  He is an amazingly gifted artist.  I bet the art world hates him, as he knows how to actually draw and paint a picture of something.  Here is a sample.

That's about as racy as SDP gets.  Here's one for Professor Schaff:

And here's one of the Gipper:

Bear in mind that these are paintings, not photos. No photo could ever be so true to what truly is.

Dr. Newquist gives me another shot

Professor David Newquist graciously gives me another chance to identify a jazz photo.  Here is his puzzler:

The sax player is Lester Young.  Here is another shot, with the same Pork Pie Hat:

Perhaps my single favorite jazz composition is Good Bye Pork Pie Hat, by Charlie Mingus.  If you scroll back through the archives of Straight No Chaser, you can find an entire program devoted to different versions of the song.  "

When Charlie speaks of Lester,
you know someone great has gone.
That sweetest, swinging music man
Had a Porky Pig Hat on.

Those are words written and sung by Joni Mitchell on her album, Mingus. 

ps.  My knowledge of jazz is in fact rather narrow.  I don't know who the singer is (Professor Newquist indicated it was a clue to the time period).  And I do not know the work of Lester Young.  I look forward to it. 

Randy Frederick Stepping Down

Argus Leader:

Randy Frederick has decided against seeking another term as chairman of the South Dakota Republican Party.

Frederick, a Hayti farmer, said today his term ends in February. He won’t seek another term, and it will be up to the state party central committee to choose a new chair at that time, he said.

“When I ran for the position four years ago, I promised (Republican Gov.) Mike Rounds four years,’’ Frederick said. “I can’t promise him another four years as state party chair and it doesn’t make any sense to promise him two, to sign on for another two. And the next two years, coming up to ’08, I can probably be of more service to him outside the chairmanship rather than inside.’’

SDWC was ahead of the Argus Leader by several hours reporting this news.  Great work, PP!

Tim Johnson

From Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza, who is writing about the 2008 Senate races:

South Dakota -- Tim Johnson (D): It's hard to imagine Republicans finding a stronger challenger than Thune to try and topple Johnson. Johnson's 2002 victory -- albeit it by the narrowest of margins -- proved his appeal in the state. In many ways Johnson's low-key demeanor is a more natural fit for the state than the more charismatic and high-profile leadership of Sen. Tom Daschle (D), who was ousted by Thune in 2004. The one obvious Republican candidate would be Gov. Mike Rounds, who was easily reelected to a second term last week. He will likely be heavily recruited to consider a challenge to Johnson -- especially since the state gave President Bush 60 percent of its vote in 2004. Rumors that Johnson may retire persist -- fueled by his marginal $651,000 cash-on-hand total.

David Newquist and I agree on something!

Professor Newquist had a challenge on his website: indentify the following picture. 

He promised an Al Sharpton campaign button to the winner. Unfortunately he revealed the winner himself before I had a chance to claim the prize.  Its a distorted version of this excellent photo.

Here is Professor Newquist's comment:

Those who tried to identify the man in the photo will have to go farther back than the Blues Brothers. It's Coleman Hawkins. Tenor sax. Incredible man whose playing made the world worth living in for many.

I'm with David on this one.  One of my favorite Jazz disks is Bean Bags, a collaboration between Hawkins and Milt Jackson.  The opening cut, "Close Your Eyes," is a good as Jazz gets.  And that is about as good as music gets.  I suppose it's out of the question to ask for my Sharpton button?

Milton Friedman

Professor Schaff notes below the passing of Milton Friedman.  I have been out of touch while in Philadelphia, as my hotel charges for wireless internet (unlike the Mahogany), so I learning of this sorrow from John.

I had the pleasure of meeting Friedman many years ago in San Francisco.  It was a meeting of the Philadelphia Society.  Friedman was very short.  I am pretty sure I had him by a couple of inches.  But he was one of the most clear minded and consistently right economists in the history of that discipline.  I remember that Friedman opened his public talk with a good joke.

What do you get when you cross a pig with Congress?

Answer: nothing.  There are some things even a pig won't do. 

Friedman brought economics as close to a real science as it can get.  Everything has to be paid for.  What you spend on one thing can't be spent on something else.  If you pay for genius and innovation you will get more of it.  If you tax the same, you will get less.  That is the way his mind worked.  It just happens to be the way the world works.  Godspeed, Mr. Friedman. 

Blogging from Philadelphia

I am coming to you tonight from the City of Brotherly Love, which is hosting the annual meeting of the National Collegiate Honors Council.  More specifically, I am blogging from Mahogany, a wonderful little cigar bar on Walnut Street between 14th and 15th Streets.  The placed is full of businessmen with their top buttons undone and large cigars in their paws.  They have wood paneled lockers where gentlemen keep their private collection of hand rolled beauties.  Roll the music and recite a little Kipling:

Open the old cigar-box, get me a Cuba stout,
For things are running crossways, and Maggie and I are out.

  In between conference business, I have been able to visit the Mutter Museum of Surgery (a chamber of horrors, that one, and the marvelous Philadelphia museum of art).  They have Joseph Mallord William Turner's "Burning of the House of Parliament," as well as a fine collection of Asian art.  Turner is my favorite painter.  The central image in their Japanese temple might be my favorite Buddha statue.  Siddhartha would not have liked it as much as I did.  He insisted he was just a man.  That insistence gave way after about 200 years, and they promoted him to god. 

The founding fathers were just men, too.  Tomorrow we will visit the most important room in American history, at Independence Hall. 

Daschle

Tom Daschle doesn't make ActBlue's list of prospective presidential candidates for 2008.

FFA

New York Times:

INDIANAPOLIS — The number of family farms in America is dwindling, as is the number of young people who say they hope to take over their parents’ farms. So the National FFA Organization, once known as the Future Farmers of America, would seem doomed to a parallel fate.

But a swarm of blue corduroy jackets, not so different from the jackets the Future Farmers wore in the 1930s, seemed to fill every street corner of this city’s downtown in October for the FFA’s national convention, which the group says has grown into the largest annual student gathering in the nation.

The Future Farmers declined precipitously as the country’s farm economy fell into crisis and agriculture classes, like other vocational classes, fell out of favor. But the group, which for nearly 80 years bound together farm youths in the country’s most isolated parts, has swelled by more than 100,000 members over the last decade and a half to almost a half-million this year.

A new face has emerged on this old-fashioned tradition. More FFA members now come from towns, suburbs and city neighborhoods, including Queens and the South Side of Chicago, than from rural farm regions, FFA officials say. The largest chapter in the country? At W. B. Saul High School of Agricultural Sciences in Philadelphia.

Reality 1, Pelosi 0

House Democrats pick Steny Hoyer as their majority leader, proving the membership is much wiser than Nancy Pelosi.  I am very grateful for this occurrence because "Steny Hoyer" is a much funnier name than "John Murtha."  Makes for better jokes in the classroom.  And may Daniel Akaka never leave the Senate.

Freedom's Advocate

Milton Friedman, RIP. 

President Goofy Tooth

Devastating review of Jimmy Carter's new book on the Middle East. 

Kucinich Calls for Cutting Off Iraq War Funds

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, following in the footsteps of George McGovern, is calling for cutting off funding of the Iraq war:

Congressman Kucinich called Wednesday for cutting off funding of the Iraq war, as the surest way out of Iraq. His statements were made in an interview by Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman.

"I want to say that there's one solution here, and it's not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don't need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.

"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There's enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That's the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That's how we'll end this war, and that's the only way we're going to end this war.

"We need to shift our direction."

"We have to take a whole new approach. We're spending over $400 billion a year, money that's also needed for healthcare, for education, for job creation, for seniors. We have to take a new look at this. We need to be a strong country, but strength isn't only military. Strength is also the economic strength of the people, their chance to have good neighborhoods. We spend more money than all the countries of the world put together for the military.

"It's time for us to start to shift our vision about who we are as a nation, because if we don't do that -- we're borrowing money right now to wage the war in Iraq. We're borrowing money from China. We're not looking at our trade deficit. We're not looking at conditions, where people are going bankrupt trying to pay their hospital bills. We need to shift our direction, and the direction has to be away from the continued militarization of the United States society."

Better Off Dead?

This news story makes it sound like the Anglican Church in England favors letting disabled babies die if it is too expensive to treat them.  Wesley Smith notes that there is some exaggeration and bad reporting in the news story.  The AC does not endorse infanticide, just the stoppage of life sustaining activity, but Smith does say that suggesting that money should be a consideration as to whether we treat the sick and disabled is not exactly a victory for human dignity. 

This story and this story, both also out of England, discuss the possibility of using genetic test to select out children who do not meet preconceived standards.  We already abort 90% of all Down Syndrome babies.  How about aborting babies because they have the wrong hair color or they are the wrong sex?  Another victory for human dignity.  As the film Gattaca points out, there is no gene for the human spirit?

Meet The New Boss

I like this bit on the new Democratic Congress from Ed Cone, if only for the Pete Townsend reference.  HT, Instapundit. 

Alcee Hastings

In her first major act since the Democrats captured Congress, Nancy Pelosi is set to endorse Alcee Hastings for the House Intelligence Committee instead of supporting current ranking Democrat Jane Harman of California, an act The New Republic calls "both substantively foolish and politically tone-deaf":

In one of her first important acts since Democrats recaptured Congress, Nancy Pelosi is about to make a decision that is both substantively foolish and politically tone-deaf. The decision involves the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. For obvious reasons, that post has serious implications for national security--as well as the image of a Democratic Party seeking to convince the public it can be trusted to govern. But it appears alarmingly likely that Pelosi will spurn both with a decision based on petty personal and identity politics.

The current ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee is Jane Harman of California. Harman is one of the most respected Democrats in the House on national security and intelligence issues--a widely acknowledged expert in a field that Democrats as a whole are woefully unfamiliar with. Given her current seniority on the committee, Harman is the natural choice to become its chair in the Democratic Congress--and she has made clear that she wants the job. But all indications are that Pelosi will deny Harman the job and appoint in her place Alcee Hastings of Florida, a former judge who was impeached on bribery charges--and someone who has left no discernable mark upon the critical intelligence debates of the post-September 11 era.

Ordinarily, few people would take Hastings seriously for such an important job. In 1981, Hastings was a federal judge in Miami. He was accused of conspiring with a friend to take a $150,000 bribe in exchange for issuing light sentences to a pair of mobsters. A Miami jury acquitted Hastings (while convicting the friend), but three different federal judicial panels later referred him to Congress for impeachment. "Judge Hastings attempted to corruptly use his office for personal gain. Such conduct cannot be excused or condoned even after Judge Hastings has been acquitted of the criminal charge," concluded one panel, composed of five circuit court judges.

...

In a then-Democratic Congress, Hastings was impeached by the House on a 413-3 vote and convicted by the Senate, 69-26. (Hastings sounded awfully unrepentant afterward: "Everybody thinks that to get to be a judge is supposed to be the biggest doo-doo on earth. It aaaiiiin't! It ain't! It's just something else to do," he explained to The Washington Post in 1988 with a reverence for the judiciary befitting his alleged behavior.) This disgrace didn't prevent Hastings from winning a House seat, in which he has served since 1993 without leaving much of a mark on the institution.

So why does Pelosi want him for the Intelligence Committee job? There are two likely reasons. The first is that Pelosi personally dislikes Harman. In part, Pelosi is annoyed because Harman, unlike Hastings, was initially a strong supporter of the Iraq war (though she has since become a tough critic). Pelosi is also reportedly infuriated by Harman's aggressive lobbying for the job (allegedly with the help of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an effort that is reportedly being scrutinized as a part of a larger federal investigation of the group). Some also suggest natural tensions exist between two ambitious, sixty-something women in California politics. (Pelosi's office says Harman always understood that her senior position on the Intelligence Committee came with informal term limits. But that argument is badly undermined by the 9/11 Commission's strong recommendation against term limits for senior Intelligence Committee members.)

The second probable factor weighing on Pelosi is racial politics. Some have noted that Hastings might flunk a basic FBI background check for a sensitive government job, making him a curious choice to oversee the nation's most sensitive secrets--particularly for Democrats who campaigned against the GOP's "culture of corruption." So, if Harman is completely unacceptable, why can't Pelosi just choose some third candidate? The answer, most likely, is that Pelosi doesn't want to skip over a black member like Hastings for fear of angering the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). The CBC has never been shy about protecting its institutional power--even though, with African Americans sure to chair several major committees (Ways and Means, Judiciary, Homeland Security) and the likely ascension of South Carolina's James Clyburn to House majority whip, the CBC is already handsomely represented.

There's ample reason to think that Americans cast a negative vote last week--not so much for Democrats as against Republicans. Over the next two years, voters will be watching to see whether Democrats are up to the responsibility of governing, and doing so with the national interest in mind. If Nancy Pelosi bases her decision about such a critical position on a combination of personal feuding and identity politics, she won't just do Republicans a favor by giving them a readymade bogeyman to attack. She will have shown voters that she's unable to push aside petty institutional politics in the name of the national interest.

What does Rep. Herseth think of her party's new choice to be Chair of the House Intelligence Committee?

UPDATE:  Looking around at the people the two parties are nominating for various leadership posts, I have to agree with Dean Barnett who asks: "Is it just me, or is it becoming increasingly apparent that the Republicans and Democrats are determined to engage in a two year dumb-off?"

Kranz

David Kranz wonders if new Senate leader Scott Heidepriem can save Senator Sutton:

There are other significant transitions.

Most important will be the arrival of Scott Heidepriem, assuming the powerful role of Senate Minority Leader. That looms large in this equation given that Democrat voices have not been particularly effective in recent years.

Heidepriem succeeds Moore and will likely wield substantially greater clout in that job.

Gone, too, will be Senate Majority Leader Eric Bogue, R-Faith, victim of term limits. He will be replaced, not as leader, but as senator from District 28, by Ryan Maher, D-Isabel.

Outspoken new Democrats like state Sen.-elect Nancy Turbak, D-Watertown, will be in the chambers. It is likely that state Sen.-elect Sandy Jerstad, D-Sioux Falls, will be there, too, if she weathers an anticipated re-count.

Democrats will be in place, too, where Republicans used to roam, making this a more friendly environment if and when a new special session - or a proceeding during the regular session - is called to consider allegations against Sutton.

Minnesota

Joe Knippenberg of No Left Turns looks at our eastern neighbors and asks "As Minnesota goes, so goes the nation??":

MOJ blogger (and law professor) Gregory Sisk observes that winning pro-life candidates, who cemented DFL control over the state legislature, appear to be getting short shrift from the liberal leadership of the Democrat-Farmer-Labor party. Here’s the core of his post:

[I]n Minnesota (as in so many other states), Democratic gains in last week’s election, including taking control of the state house of representatives (and increasing a majority in the state senate), came largely in more conservative/moderate suburban districts and often involved Democratic candidates who described themselves as pro-life. As one Democratic pollster described it, the new DFL faces in the legislature tend to be people who “ran away” from the official DFL platform.

So, if Minnesota is the harbinger of the future, how are things looking so far in terms of prospects for a pro-life revival within the Democratic Party?

Well, just one day after the election, the assistant leader of Democrats in the state senate, Senator Ann Rest, pronounced: “We have a pro-choice Senate now.” Then, in a clear dismissal of human life issues as being worthy of any attention in the legislature, Senator Rest asserted that “[n]ow we can concentrate on the issues that bring us together, not the ones that divide us.”

Then, just two days after the election, the DFL in both houses of the Minnesota legislature proceeded to disregard the new blood in the party from the suburbs and rural areas and elect as their new leaders two of the most liberal (and stridently pro-choice) politicians in the state, both from the DFL stronghold of Minneapolis.

Interesting, eh?  Will national Democrats behave the same way?

Sutton Investigation Developments

The Argus Leader reports that state legislators are requesting Governor Rounds cancel the special session to investigation allegations of misconduct by Sen. Dan Sutton.  Mt. Blogmore speculates that the special session could still be alive, in correction to an early report that Rounds agreed to cancel the session.  As my colleague Prof. Schaff noted today, Sutton has resigned his senate seat, which is a strategic move on his part, as SDWC notes.  And our blogosphere colleague Todd Epp says Page-gate "puts a monkey wrench into Scott Heidepriem's first days as senate minority leader."  My opinion is that the special session is a better option because the legislature can focus solely on that issue, rather than dealing with the investigation along with all other legislative details they'll be facing in January. 

Presidential News

Feingold is out.  Guiliani, McCain and Biden, and Vilsak are in.  Granted, these four are only forming exploratory committees.  This does not mean for sure they are running.  I believe Guiliani will not run.  He is essentially a liberal Republican, which is fine, but that means he has about as much chance of winning a the Republican nomination as a pro-life Evangelical has of winning the Democratic nomination.  Let's also not forget that Guiliani has an ex-wife who really hates his guts.  Rudy, I suspect, will decide that a run for the presidency is not worth the public humiliation as his messy divorce is exposed for all to see.  Biden and McCain each have egos big enough to fill the Grand Canyon (Biden is possibly the most pompous windbag in the Senate, which is saying something), but both are also smart and good candidates.  Vilsak's candidacy makes it less likely that Tom Daschle will run.  What has Tom Daschle got that Tom Vilsak hasn't got?  Oh yeah, Vilsak never helped lead his party to electoral defeat, losing his own seat in the process.  I am sorry that Feingold is out, as he is a smart and honest liberal.  He'd be good for the country to see on (or near) center stage.

Getting Better All The Time

A summation of economic stats.  The Dow has set a record high and interest rates will remain stable. The inflation rate has dropped sharply, and not just because of lowering energy prices, while total worker compensation (salary and benefits) is up.  The unemployment rate is a giddy 4.4% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wal-Mart, good overall barometer of consumer spending, is reporting high profits and is looking forward to a very merry Christmas season.  Boy, that Bush is wrecking the economy.  Let's raise taxes. 

Brief, And To The Point

This is one of the best and shortest book reviews I have seen.  John Podhoretz reviews Andrew Sullivan's book on the "conservative soul." 

This Is a Review of Andrew Sullivan's Book [John Podhoretz]
I couldn't finish it because I was bored out of my mind. And I read every word of Gravity's Rainbow.
Now, based on his habit of responding to critics with restatements of his themes running to many multiples of the original words of criticism, I calculate Andrew's response to this post will run roughly the length of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Only not as funny.

Dan Sutton Resigns, Sort Of

How do you resign from the Senate but keep your seat?  Just ask Dan Sutton.  It looks like no special session. 

Heidepriem

The state Democrats have chosen Sen. Scott Heidepriem to be the party's Senate leader for the 2007 legislative session.  Heidepriem, you might recall, jumped ship on the Republicans some time ago.  He's also been rumored to want to challenge John Thune in 2010.  SDWC has thoughts on what this means for the 2007 legislative session.

Volesky

Ron Volesky writing in the Argus Leader:

I wanted to make a couple of final comments as I close out my career in politics that spanned 28 years and included 15 election victories.

I want to point out that in my most recent race for attorney general, I received more than 100,000 votes and spent approximately $1,000. I spent approximately one penny for every vote that I received, thus making me the most efficient candidate in the history of statewide politics.

Regarding my concession statement being issued prior to the polls closing: I like to get things done ahead of time. I made a decision that I wanted to issue a written statement to the media rather than conduct a telephone interview, and since my office closes at 5 p.m., and since I am not familiar with running a fax machine, it was necessary for my secretary to fax the written statement prior to her leaving the office.

The Dishonesty of CBS

Captain Ed:  CBS Misleads Readers On Hagee Interview

Giuliani in '08

Rudy Giuliani is officially considering a presidential run on the Republican ticket: 

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a moderate Republican best known for his stewardship of the city after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has taken the first step in a 2008 presidential bid, GOP officials said Monday. The former mayor filed papers to create the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc., creating a panel that would allow him to raise money for a White House run and travel the country.

The Depolarization of American Politics?

Michael Barone:

Bill Clinton tried to create a natural majority for his party but fell short. George W. Bush attempted the same for his party but has also missed the mark. The 2002 and '04 Republican majorities were too small to withstand the winds of 2006.

For a dozen years, our politics has been bitterly polarized, dominated by two baby boomer presidents who happen to have personal characteristics that people on the other side of the cultural divide absolutely loathe. Clinton in 1992 and Bush in 2000 both made genuine efforts to run as unifiers, but once in office proved to be dividers.

The 2008 cycle will bring a different cast of characters. The leaders in the polls -- Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and Hillary Clinton -- all are, to varying degrees, in tension with their parties' bases. That suggests that they have the capacity, to varying degrees, to appeal across the cultural divide and pull their parties above the 51 percent ceilings they've been under for the past 10 years. Other potential candidates -- Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Barack Obama -- may have similar potential. The culturally conservative Republican base and the vitriolically antiwar Democratic base don't seem to have strong candidates, unless you count Al Gore and John Edwards.

Confessions Of A Media Whore

The SDPR show on George Orwell with Mr. Epp went well. It looks like they now have the show archived here.  Todd and I are on 20 minutes in, but listen to the whole thing as Joel Johnson of Augustana has interesting things to say about 1984.  We were civil to each other, which was especially big of me considering Todd wanders the Earth living in invincible ignorance (it's a joke people).  But according to Todd, I am no longer an unperson.  Todd has too many posts to link to, so just go to his site and read up.  But beware, my mind's eye is now blind with the thought of David Newquist dressed as Ali G.  Also, I have been cited by Andrew Sullivan today.  He picks up the story in the Rapid City Journal last week in which I and SDSU's Bob Burns were quoted.  Little does Sullivan know that I am an apologist for the "Christianists." 

Two things I'd like to point out about the Forum show.  First, as I mention in my last comments on the show, I misspoke at one point.  I said, "clean government is totalitarian government, so I go for messy government."  What I should have said is "clean politics is totalitarian politics, so I go for messy politics."  What I mean by that is the rough and tumble conflict of interests and ideas is an inevitable part of democracy.  The only way to get rid of the messy conflicts of opposing interests is to get rid of all interests.  If you don't like bickering, partisanship, interest groups and negative ads, move to Cuba or North Korea.  They don't have any of those things. 

Second, we spent a lot of time on the show talking about the Bush administration.  I wish we would have talked more about the nature of totalitarianism and, as Tocqueville puts it, what sort of despotism democracies ought to fear.  I'd say more about that, but I am already missing Law and Order on TNT. 

Gannett

Newspaper publishing gaint Gannett Corporation, which owns the Argus Leader, is poised to make a big purchase:

Gannett Co. Inc., the largest U.S. newspaper company, is pursuing a bid for rival Tribune Co., according to media reports.

Tribune, with a market value of about $8 billion, is trying to sell itself amid weak financial results, an uncertain future and pressure from the Chandler family, a major shareholder.

After putting in a bid for the whole company, Gannett executives visited Tribune's Chicago headquarters to hear management's presentations, the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times -- both Tribune papers -- reported over the weekend.

Gannett's pursuit of Tribune, publisher of USA Today, heats up an already crowded field of suitors, which includes several groups of private equity firms.

Tribune properties also include New York's Newsday and the Chicago Cubs baseball team.

Change for the GOP

In an earlier post, Jason Heppler discusses how the GOP must return to its core principles.  I certainly agree with much of what he said.  I also recommend a reading of this article by Frank Luntz at the Weekly Standard.  He discusses what the GOP must do to remain strong in two years.  Here's a segment on the lessons that can be learned from the recent election cycle:

Lesson One: "I was wrong." Those three simple words never came from the lips of any Republican anywhere, and it is one reason so many Republicans were defeated. Voters saw hubris instead of humility, and voting against the GOP was the only way they could send a message of rebuke. The Responsible Republicans of 1994 who engaged their constituents in a mature, meaningful dialogue became the Inept Republicans of 2006 who asserted and demanded but did not listen to the people they served. Sacking Donald Rumsfeld was the White House's way of acknowledging they blew it. Congressional Republicans need to take the same course by replacing those who led the GOP into the wilderness with a new generation of leaders with voices more attuned to the people back home. Voters want a clean sweep. Ignore them at your peril.

Lesson Two: Voters care about the spending of government, not the size. All across America, Republican candidates closed their campaigns with the warning that Democrats would increase government and increase taxes. And all across America, Republicans lost. What Americans wanted from their elected officials was fiscal discipline, accountability, and ethics. But these words simply did not describe a party of bridges to nowhere and congressmen who lined their pockets with cash. In our Election Night poll, we asked voters which issue most annoyed them about the Republican-controlled Congress. Among the Americans who swung from the GOP to the Democrats (Republican Rejecters), "unethical and illegal behavior going unpunished" was number two on the list (behind illegal immigration). For congressional Republicans to return to majority status, they must once again become the guardians of the national interest, the protectors of the purse strings, and the purveyors of honesty. If they don't regain the trust of the people over the next two years, they won't regain Congress.

Lesson Three: Run on reform. Fully 40 percent of the Republican Rejecters and 36 percent of the overall electorate want "significant, bold change in the way America is run." Even 18 percent of Republican congressional voters want a dramatic change in the direction of our country. If congressional Republicans are listening, they will demand new leadership that embraces the cleansing power of reform. Just as the Democratic promise to take America in "a new direction" led them to majority status, congressional Republicans need to set their party off onto a different path--a path toward real, meaningful reform.

Lesson Four: The future must be better than the past. The 1994 Contract With America wasn't a political gimmick. It was a clearly articulated agenda that addressed the day-to-day problems and concerns of average Americans. It was tough on spending, tough on taxes, tough on welfare, tough on crime--tough on all the things Americans wanted less of so that they could have more of what they really wanted: freedom and security. Several dozen members begged their leadership to offer a new Republican contract in 2006 because they sensed, correctly, that the party had lost its focus on the future and was interested only in defending the present. The response? Silence. The next leadership team needs to remember that no vision means no votes.

Epp and Schaff on South Dakota Forum

Today on South Dakota Public Radio, my colleague Professor Schaff and Todd Epp will discuss the novel 1984, and, I expect, its implications for American politics.  You can listen to it live, at noon, by following the link above.  I have trouble imagining how this discussion will work, since Todd recently announced that he would henceforth refuse to acknowledge the existence of Professor Schaff or myself.  Perhaps he could preface each remark with a disclaimer: "if someone existed who just said what you just heard, I would reply . . . " 

Todd wrote me out of existence when I playfully suggested that he was stepping outside his field of expertise in commenting on literature.  I thought I made it clear that I was not being serious.  I believe that great books are written for everyone, and Todd is surely a very learned reader.  But Todd had been calling me and Jim Seeber the Aberdeen Hardy boys because of a piece we cowrote on the Morgan Lewis investigation.  I thought Todd was mostly jesting, but there did seem to be a hint of seriousness in the implication that we were stepping outside our field of expertise.  In fact we wrote not as experts in any sense but as concerned citizens and members of the NSU community.  Still, I thought that if he could have his fun with me, I could have my fun with him.  Apparently not. 

As I say, I think great books are written for whoever manages to read them, and that literary interpretation should be a part of every discipline whenever possible.  But not everyone agrees.  Professor David Newquist, a frequent critic of this blog, didn't care for my post on Epp and 1984.

The poster [that would be me] asserts that Todd Epp's parallels are absurd: "No reasonable person could suppose that the Newspeak slogans of 1984 "fit" this or any other administration." He prefaces this comment with the charge that Todd Epp "now deems himself a professor, qualified to comment on literature."

So it's bad, I gather, to suggest that lawyers should not comment on literature (something I was not really suggesting).  But when my colleague, Professor Schaff, commented on the writings of Flannery O'Connor and Walker Percy, Professor Newquist was wounded.  In a letter posted on Epp's website, he has this to say:

Being well acquainted with both of these southern writers, Flannery O'Connor and Walker Percy, I know that their references to the Holocaust were in quite different, and well defined, contexts than the one evoked here.

Political science is a pseudo science that ranks below alchemy as a legitimate academic discipline. The application of it to literary works and figures shows the severe intellectual devolution that afflicts our nation and our culture.

So it is apparently alright for lawyers to comment on literature, but not political scientists.  And professors of literature have the title to pronounce on the scientific merits of whole disciplines involving tens of thousands of scholars.  Okay, just so I get it straight. 

 

On Al Qaeda and the Democrats, I'm with Captain Ed

It has recently been reported that both Al Qaeda and the Ayatollahs of Iran approve of the Democratic victory in this year's election. 

(CBS/AP) Al Qaeda in Iraq taunted President Bush on Friday to keep American troops in the country because the terrorist organization had not shed "enough of your blood," bragging that it now has 12,000 fighters in the war-torn country.

The terror group also welcomed the U.S. Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and vowed to continue its fight until the White House is blown up.

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters and John Hinderaker at Powerline have been trading punches over this.  Hinderaker thinks the Democrats should accept some responsibility for this:

Do the Democrats feel at all sheepish at having their victory hailed by al Qaeda? Do they feel any pressure to demonstrate to the American people that they are not a de facto ally of the terrorists? Not as far as we've noticed so far. But when the Democrats stop celebrating, they may want to pause long enough to consider a simple question: Why are the terrorists so happy that they won?

Captain Ed responds forcefully:

We've already had the election, and the Democrats are in charge -- and they will be for two years no matter what. Obviously, we will watch closely to ensure that they do not surrender to terrorism, but I'm not going to take Abu Hamza's word that they will before their majority session even starts. They are Americans, and Americans put them in charge, and they have earned the right to show us how they will face the enemy now that they control the agenda.

Much as I admire Powerline (in my view, the best political blog running) I'm with Captain Ed all the way on this one. 

It is surely plausible that the insurgents in Iraq, along with the murderous factions and their masters in Tehran and Damascus, would take some hope from the American election.  It may be that the Democrats will force a withdrawal, and give the terrorist what they want: a chance to make Iraq into a new Iran.  But it is just as true that Bush, by breaking a perfectly good (=efficiently murderous) dictatorship, made this possible.  Both sides of Congress have to take responsibility for what happens next.

Besides, we don't let terrorists or Ayatollahs tell us who to vote for, so we don't let them tell us who to vote against.  I would like to have seen some appreciation among the left for the evident yearning of the Iraqi people to govern themselves.  But no reasonable person thinks that the Democrats have any sympathy for the insurgents or their cut throat backers.  The Iraq war was the primary issue in the recent election.  But for that, I do not believe that the Republicans would have suffered significant losses.  But it was Republican leadership in general that was at stake, and the Republicans lost. 

The Democrats ought to consider what Al Qaeda is rooting for, but they bear no responsibility for how our enemies interpret their victory. 

Return to Principles

Yesterday I argued that conservatism as a governing principle is still very strong despite the Republican's midterm loss of both chambers of Congress.  The issue now is what can Republicans do to recapture the majority in 2008?  Why did voters reject the GOP after twelve years in power?  I'll offer thoughts on three areas.

1.  Principles
In all of the blog reactions, television, and radio programs I've read or listened to, the most common thread is that Republicans have forgotten why they were elected in the first place.  The Reagan Revolution of the 1980s and the 1994 Contract with America brought reform.  Voters were fed up with a Congress that passed laws they refused to apply to themselves, of a federal government that kept growing, and a perception of the legislature as a corrupt organization moving at the whim of lobbyist.  Sound familiar?

For a time Republicans acted on their manifesto for change.   Before Newt Gingrich left office, Republicans kept spending under control and carried through procedural reforms intended on weeding out corruption.  The election of George W. Bush changed this, who has always been less conservative than his critics understand.  Big-government conservatism, an issue I've touched on before, was implemented.   Spending went through the roof and Republicans adopted the same earmark routine that locked Democrats into power for forty years.  Voters grew disenchanted and coupled with a difficult war, lost confidence in Republicans to lead and elected Democrats and conservative Democrats to replace them.

We can see the effect: once government begins to grow, the large amounts of money required to run big government attracts special interests and lobbyists, which provides a seedbed for corruption.  A CNN poll in October showed a majority of voters felt the government tries to do too much, and only one third think the government should do more.  Big government and the sources required for it generate corruption.  There's a reason Democrats recruited center-right candidates.

2.  Leadership
Much of this blends with principles, but is still important to consider.  Republicans refused to act as the majority party for most of their tenure under the Bush administration.  They dropped the ball on several issues, including a once-in-a-generation to reform Social Security and health care along free-market principles.

It's time for some fresh ideas, and we're seeing this happen.  Donald Rumsfeld, Ken Mehlmen, and Dennis Hastert have all resigned and a younger generation is stepping forward.  Mike Pence of Indiana has declared his intent to become minority leader, and John Shadegg of Arizona is seeking a number of jobs as whip.  Others have tried to put their ideas above incumbency.  The GOP's willingness to accept new leadership will indicate what they've learned from last week.

Machiavelli pointed out long ago that power corrupts, and too many Republicans were seduced by power and forgot why the voters sent them to Washington. 

3.  War
Was the war a major issue in the election?  If Iraq is such a major problem, then how does one explain why Ned Lamont lost 60-40 in blue Connecticut?  And why are McCain and Guiliani, two of the biggest hawks in the country, leading in the straw polls for 2008?  The war is certainly important: we've been in Iraq for five years and have made significant progress, but perhaps its time to "double down," as William J. Stuntz argues.  The war will have significant repercussions for Republicans, to be sure.  I expect the war to play a bigger role in 2008 than it did last Tuesday.  The President needs to be more forceful and vocal about the imporance of the war.  Don't leave it only to bloggers and talk show hosts to explain.   

It would also help if the President explained more clearly the plan for Iraq and the War on Terror.  Where will the United States be in five years?  Ten?  What sort of progress are we making?  Most of the news I read about the War on Terror comes from six sources, all blogs.  If it were not for them, it would be hard to find news of progress in the MSM or in the words of President Bush.   In terms of the midterm elections, the war was a third tier concern.  I think above all it was leadership and corruption that decided the election.

What To Do
So how can Republicans return to power?  Above all, return to the principles of limited federal government, strong national defense, and support of private property.   Second, adopt new leadership that will bring fresh ideas to the table.  Lastly, assure the American people of the importance of this war at every chance one has.  If the Republicans wish to regain the majority, they needs to group around their principles.  Fighting the big-government solutions of the liberals, keeping the nation strong, and reducing the government's power in intrusion of private property will resonate in 2008.

In concluding the Contract with America, the authors promised: "If we break this contract, throw us out."  That time had come.  Now lets fix it.