South Dakota Politics

Historians and South Dakota

There's a couple of South Dakota-related topics over at the History News Network.  The first is by Jon Lauck entitled "Historians Should Embrace Politics."   He argues America needs more "scholar-citizens" and that historians should engage politics to enhance  their teaching and scholarship.  Or, as Charles Beard once lamented, the historical profession was plagued by “too much calm, not enough passion … too many books, not enough strife of experience.” [1]  The other article is by Rick Perlstein, originally printed in Democracy: Journal of Ideas, where he discusses the McGovern legacy and what the "1972 campaign can—and can’t—teach liberals today." 

[1] Cushing Strout, The Pragmatic Revolt in American History: Carl Becker and Charles Beard (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958), 4.

More On the University of Iowa

Robert KC Johnson writes of "More Iowa Rationalizations" at the History News Network and confronts Professor Hanley's assertion that the history department is overwhelmingly Democrats because Johnson County is primarily Democratic.  Excerpt:

According to Morelli, Hanley also mirrored Gordon's assertion on why the department had no Republicans—the breakdown of their county's registration figures. "To participate politically here, you have to be a Democrat, she said, noting that most local public officials are Democrats."

This is an odd claim indeed: it would suggest, of course, that History Departments in Republican counties (say, Arizona State University) would be likely to include no Democrats among their ranks. It also suggests an odd view of politics: Hanley appears to believe that people develop an abstract desire to participate politically, and then choose the party based on the likelihood of success.

(And the numbers from Hanley's own county don't quite support her argument: while UI profs registered in Johnson County have a Democrat/Republican ratio of 66.1/11.5, or roughly 6-to-1, the county ratio is 43.9/19.4, or around 2.25/1. Why faculty residents of Johnson County would be so much more Democratic than everyone else in Johnson County Hanley didn't say.)

Hanley further told Morelli that ideological one-sidedness wasn't a problem for her—or any—academic department. "I don't think," said she, "there is a downside." Hanley added a bizarre analogy: "If it is a downside, then it would be a downside to have states to be so-called blue or so-called red. It would be casting a pall on the democratic system where people are free to choose."

I can only hope that Hanley offers a more sophisticated interpretation of politics in her classes.

Obama Up, Clinton Down

Things certainly are in flux in the presidential races of both parties.  The rise of Mike Huckabee among the Republicans has been well covered.  Now the story is the rise of Barack Obama, or, perhaps more accurately, the sinking of Hillary Clinton.  Peggy Noonan puts it well:

This thought occurs that Hillary Clinton's entire campaign is, and always was, a Potemkin village, a giant head fake, a haughty facade hollow at the core. That she is disorganized on the ground in Iowa, taken aback by a challenge to her invincibility, that she doesn't actually have an A team, that her advisers have always been chosen more for proven loyalty than talent, that her supporters don't feel deep affection for her. That she's scrambling chaotically to catch up, with surrogates saying scuzzy things about Barack Obama and drug use, and her following up with apologies that will, as always, keep the story alive. That her guru-pollster, the almost universally disliked Mark Penn, has, according to Newsday, become the focus of charges that he has "mistakenly run Clinton as a de facto incumbent" and that the top officials on the campaign have never had a real understanding of Iowa.

As Noonan goes on to say, the Clinton team looked on this contest less as a campaign than a coronation.  I still think Clinton is the favorite, but her weaknesses have been revealed.  And more revealingly, they have been exposed by herself as much as by her opponents.  Take the story surrounding her campaign's lame discussion about Obama's kindergarten essays or the recent one about Obama's past drug use. There is an air of meanness and desperation in these attacks.  In the recent case involving drugs one sees a typical Clinton ploy: get your surrogate to poison the well with by talking about Obama's checkered past and then attempt to take the high ground by saying, "Hey, it wasn't me, it was just this campaign lackey."  Add these campaign tactics with the Clinton record of ethical lapses, and one gets a picture of someone who perhaps should not be trusted with power. 

It is a shame that the grown-ups in the Democratic race, namely Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, appear to be going no where as candidates.  Perhaps the Democratic voters should give them a second look just as they are now giving Sen. Clinton a second not-so-favorable look.

Here is the video of the moment Andrew Sullivan calls "One of those split-second responses in which political authority is passed from one person to another." 

What Is The Bias

The other day I posted on a Robert Maranto column in the Washington Post about the bias against conservatives in academia.  The Post now prints a rebuttal by political scientist Eric Uslaner.  His argument can be summed up thusly: conservatives don't go into academia because they are more concerned about making money and even though there is an overwhelming bias toward the Left in academia, Uslaner hasn't seen any outright bias. 

Patrick Deneen pretty much has the goods on Uslaner.  Uslaner complains that Maranto can provide no scientific evidence that liberal domination of the academy leads to bias, yet Uslaner's own evidence against such bias is all anecdotal.  I don't know how one would go about scientifically proving such bias, but one can do a scientific thought experiment.  Uslaner is certainly correct that most academics do not bring their biases into the classroom.  But a certain percentage do, let's say 10% (a number that I suspect is low in some disciplines).  That still means that liberal bias will far outnumber conservative bias due to the fact that left-of-center political views are dominant in academia.  A conservative student is likely to find a class or two (at least) where he or she is made to feel unwelcome.    Maybe conservatives trend toward business degrees because, due to the nature of the subject, that is a place where they are less likely to feel unwelcome.  Further, Uslaner would have to admit that there are entire disciplines (such as ethnic studies, gender studies, peace studies) that are based on ideological assumptions unfriendly to conservative points of view. 

While the above discussion will be of more interest to the typical reader, but as I find arguments over liberal bias in the academy tiresome, I find Deneen's larger point more penetrating and thought provoking as it gets to the nature of the university.  Here, I think, is his point:

The dominance of a liberal - or better put, progressive - worldview among university faculty has more to do with the transformation of the University from a conservative institution to an "agent of progressive change" in our culture. Universities until relatively recently were conservative or better put "conservators," particularly inasmuch as they were charged with transmitting knowledge and collective wisdom of the past to future generations. Universities were the repositories of the past and conveyors of tradition to the future. More often than not colleges and universities were religious institutions and its professors were just that - men and women who professed faith to the young. If there were sophisticated surveys that measured worldviews and dispositions (and not mere party affiliation, since then - as is often the case now - Republicans were apt to be the more progressive of the two parties), one would find that faculty at most colleges and universities even just a few decades ago would likely have been "conservative" as a matter of disposition, valuing above all the transmission of knowledge and liberal learning among their charges. The contemporary agendas of "research," "originality," and "problem-solving" were not a part of the college agenda.

This is similar (but not the same) to the explanation some give for the preponderance of progressive views among journalists (more prevalent the larger the media institution).  Journalism in the late 20th Century began to see its mission as reporting on problems/injustices and then proposing solutions.  Journalism became a progressive enterprise, an agent of social change.  The university now sees itself as an engine of change rather an institution that passes on a heritage (see Deneen's discussion of "post-everything" in English departments, for example). 

Interestingly, many, if not most, of conservatives I am aware of in academia are drawn to small liberal arts and/or teaching centered schools.  There one can actually focus on teaching undergraduates rather than producing new research.  Readers may be surprised at how little teaching goes on at bigger schools, such as the Big Ten schools.  I recall the contempt for undergraduate teaching expressed by the graduate students at a Big Ten university where a friend of mine got his PhD. This lends credence to Deneen's argument that the places that grant PhD's are especially antagonistic to those with conservative dispositions (if not conservative politics). 

I have argued before that as an undergraduate one is more likely (although not certain) to get a better education at a smaller teaching centered school than a large research university, although each serves a purpose.  Deneen's argument provides more evidence for that argument. 

Some Inconvenient Statistics On Climate Policy

Al Gore has taken his Power Point show on the road and is now criticizing the U.S. for standing in the way of progress. 

In a 48-minute speech, Gore urged the delegates to "go far, quickly" in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, saying they should forge ahead with a consensus statement and leave "a large open space in your document" to allow a future U.S. president to work more aggressively to curb global warming.

"My country's been responsible for obstructing the process here in Bali, we know that," he said to a crowd that overflowed the hall, forcing some people to sit on the floor. "Over the next two years, the United States is going to be somewhere where it is not now. You must anticipate that."

It is a rather striking thing for a former Vice President to urge other nations to ignore the current U.S. Administration and just wait for the next one.  But given Gore's obvious belief in this cause, I suppose he has to do what he has to do. 

But it is also striking to compare the record of nations that ratified the last global treaty on climate change, the Kyoto Protocols, with that of the U.S.   Here from Randall Hoven at American Thinker is the comparison (ht to Powerline):

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998.  A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

• Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
• Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
• Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
• Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.

So the percentage increase in carbon emissions in the U.S. was a third of that of the rest of the world, and closer to a quarter of the average increase among nations that signed the Kyoto treaty.  President Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate. The Senate voted on it anyway, in 1997, and by a 95-0 vote rejected any treaty like Kyoto that did not include major players such as China and India.  Nonetheless, the U.S. has a better record on controlling its own carbon emissions than three quarters of those nations that did sign the treaty.  It is characteristic of international politics that actual outcomes are considered less important that pious statements of intention. 

The world is almost certainly warming.  That human industry plays an important role is likely, but far less certain.  The really inconvenient truth is that it is impossible to stop the growth in world greenhouse emissions without bringing global economic growth to a halt, especially in the rising economies in the East.  It looks like China has now passed the U.S. as the single largest contributer to such emissions, and China is just getting going.  A reduction in the growth of future emissions may be possible, and perhaps that is something to be worked for.  Stopping the growth of green house emissions, let alone reducing global emissions, is just not going to happen in any reasonable time frame.

A rational and honest policy would face these facts, and would include planning for the future in light of those facts.  Bear in mind that the low growth of greenhouse emissions in the U.S. coincided with a remarkable period of economic growth under President's Clinton and Bush.  This had a lot to do with the increased productivity in American industry. The only way out of the problems created by technology is through better technology, shared around the globe through trade.  And honest and rational policy would take that into account as well.  Don't expect anyone to win the Noble Prize by proposing such a policy.   

Mitchell Report

The Mitchell Report on performance enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball has been released.  View it here (pdf alert).  Some names that fans will find familiar:
Barry Bonds
Gary Sheffield
Andy Pettite
Roger Clemens
Rondell White
Chuck Knoblauch
David Justice
Mo Vaughn
Denny Neagle
Miguel Tejada
Mike Stanton
Paul Lo Duca
Kevin Brown
Eric Gagne
Jason Giambi

There are other names of players you have heard of and some you haven't.  What is clear from a quick scan of the report is that steroids were rampant in baseball as of about five years ago.

Update: Here's a complete list of players named in the report.

Children and The Boob Tube

Megan Cox Gurdon ponders some new evidence about the effect of television on young children.  Those effects are mixed, although she does conclude:

But over and over, Ms. Guernsey's findings point away from the beneficence of the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and engaged contact between parents and children--and between children and their own imaginations. "It is play, plain and simple play, that affords many of the most essential intellectual and social advantages for children," Ms. Guernsey says, quoting from a book called "Einstein Never Used Flashcards." At another point she writes: "Video exposure is no match for the stimulation children experience in real life. Scientists have so far come up with nothing to suggest that babies are better off watching a baby video than, say, watching Dad fold laundry."

Ms. Guernsey is tolerant and circumspect about what she has found. I don't have to be. If you have small children at home, please turn off that wretched TV.

The defense of our increasingly visual culture is that we are becoming wiser in our use and interpretation of imagery.  A colleague of mine who teaches a class on pop culture and advertising tells me that our students are very sophisticated interpreters of visual stimuli.  So it might be that we are trading one sort of literacy for another.  Thus it may not be a problem, it could be argued, that each generation's vocabulary is decreasing and the ability to communicate in the written and spoken word is on the decline.  This is no worry unless the ability to speak and write is essential to being a fully rational human being. 

College Costs

The Wall Street Journal takes our elite colleges and universities to task for the high price of attendance coupled with their enormous endowments. 

While private foundations have been required for decades to shell out 5% of their total assets annually, universities decide for themselves and average close to 4%. The difference may seem small, but the money at stake is very large. Harvard's endowment is $35 billion, and growing, with implications that Fay Vincent illuminates nearby. Mr. Grassley wants to know why rich schools don't spend more of their money to reduce ballooning tuition. (snip)

Ironically, these government handouts are creating the tuition problem. Tuition has risen about three percentage points faster than inflation every year for the past quarter-century. At the same time, the feds have put more and more money behind student loans and other financial aid. The government is slowly becoming a third-party tuition payer, with all the price distortions one would expect. Every time tuition rises, the government makes up the difference; colleges thus cheerfully raise tuition (and budgets), knowing the government will step in.

As a result, "colleges have little incentive to cut costs," says economist Richard Vedder, the author of "Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much." Mr. Vedder explains that there are now twice as many university administrators per student as there were in the 1970s. Faculty members are paid more to teach fewer hours, and colleges have turned their campuses into "country clubs." Princeton's new $136 million dorm, according to BusinessWeek, has "triple-glazed mahogany casement windows made of leaded glass" and "the dining hall boasts a 35-foot ceiling gabled in oak and a 'state of the art servery,' " whatever a servery is.

One should note that the trends at these elite universities (and the same is true at the major public research institutions) have avoided our state.  One thing you cannot say about our universities is that they have more money than they know what to do with.   This report also shows the shortsightedness of our federal representatives who call for more and more spending on higher education without looking at how the colleges and universities spend their money. 

The Gov Takes Another Flight

Gov. Mike Rounds is in Iraq. He reports that soldiers are telling him that the level of violence is down.

Gov. Mike Rounds visited South Dakota troops in Iraq on Wednesday and talked with soldiers who he said are optimistic that the level of violence is decreasing. (snip)

''It has changed over the last few months, according to them,'' Rounds said from Camp Arifjan in Kuwait during telephone a conference call Wednesday. ''They've indicated to us that the violence is down. They're not getting shot at near as much as what they used to be.''

"They're not getting shot at near as much as what they used to be."  If only we could say that here in the US. 

Internet Films

I understand the latest edition of the Jackass movies is only being released online.  Perhaps this is an installment (hat tip to reader Gary, and yes this is Alan Keyes giving us his opinion on global warming, sort of):

So You Don't Have To

I watched the Republican debate this afternoon.  I have had invasive body exams that were more fun.  The analysis seems to agree that this was a boring debate dominated by a dreadful moderator who Fred Barnes on Fox compared to Nurse Ratchet.  The only really interesting moment was Fred Thompson refusing to raise his hand in answer to, "Do you think there is global warming caused by humans?"  His point was that he was not going to raise his hand without being able to actually explain his answer, which the moderator told him he would not be able to do.  Good for Thompson. Then, after Alan Keyes addressed the global warming issue by talking about how unfair it is that he hasn't been invited to the other debates, Thompson quipped, "I agree with Alan Keyes on global warming."  And whoever it was at the Des Moines Register who thought inviting Alan Keyes was a good idea ought to be fired.  An otherwise entirely uninteresting debate.

Update: I think Jim Geraghty at NRO pretty much as it right, down to the absurdity of the Des Moines Register inviting the irrelevant Alan Keyes to the GOP debate while refusing to invite Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich to the Democrat debate tomorrow. 

Update II:  Jay Reding has the Thompson video:

South Dakota Development

A couple possible government initiatives might bring economic development to South Dakota.  First, there is possibility of building a four-lane highway from Aberdeen to Mobridge.  This obviously would make commerce between the two cities much easier.  This would also mean a four-lane highway from Interstate 29 to the Missouri River on US Highway 12. 

If one reads this story on the farm bill (which, btw, is going nowhere), one gets this nugget. 

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated Tuesday that an expanded renewable fuels mandate for gasoline production would be part of the farm bill. A similar provision is included in stalled energy legislation, and supporters want to include the language in the farm bill in case the energy bill doesn't pass.

The amendment, sponsored by Republican Sens. Pete Domenici of New Mexico and John Thune of South Dakota, would require 36 billion gallons of biofuels be blended with gasoline by 2022.

Energy News

The Wall Street Journal reports on the latest shenanigans regarding the Energy Bill.

Risking the possibility of a White House veto, Senate Democrats try again tomorrow to pass an energy bill that includes some provisions President Bush has said he won't accept. (snip)

The bill removes a section requiring utilities to make 15% of their electricity from "renewable" sources, such as wind and solar power, but leaves in other items Mr. Bush opposes.

Before going to the president, the measure would have to be approved by the House, which has taken a more pro-environment stance than the Senate. President Bush then would consider whether the bill's main actions, broadening a mandate to require more ethanol and "advanced biofuels" and a historic tightening of fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles, should be signed into law. (snip)

The White House yesterday reiterated its opposition to the tax package, which would raise money by removing tax incentives that Congress had previously given oil companies.

SDSU economist George Langelett had this op-ed recently in the American News arguing that removing government regulations and keeping taxes low is the best way to keep supply up and price down. 

Is Congress trying to increase or decrease the supply of oil? Increasing the supply of oil to meet growing world demand will lower gasoline prices. Additional taxes on petroleum profits are a disincentive to produce oil and to invest in new technologies to convert oil shale in the Rocky Mountains or oil sands in Alberta into gasoline. These new taxes will lead to higher prices for consumers at the pump.

History has shown that attempts by the federal government to tax and regulate our way to more plentiful and secure energy have failed miserably. In 1980 Congress instituted a "windfall'' profit tax to punish the oil industry. The result, according to a congressional study, was a 3 percent to 6 percent drop in domestic petroleum production and an 8 percent to 16 percent increase in oil imports.

The economic reality of U.S. energy demand is that America needs both oil and alternative fuels. A University of Minnesota study found that if every bushel of corn grown in the United States were converted into ethanol, the resulting ethanol would only replace 12 percent of American's gasoline consumption.

Finally, endorsing congressional taxation of industry profits can be a slippery slope. What might be the next industry for Congress to target for additional taxes on profits? As corn goes to $4 per bushel, agriculture may become a lucrative target for additional federal taxes.

Update: Read Mac Owens on the same subject. 

How Far We've Come

Todd ponders the role of celebrities in politics.  Glen Reynolds links to the answer, entitled "Decline of the West":

Update: Dennis Prager spends a little time discussing Oprah Winfrey at an Obama rally.  Go to hour two of December 11, 2007.  Needless to say, Oprah perhaps should stick to her TV show. 

SDP Jazz Note: 10 Best CDs for Christmas

This may come too late for use, as the Post Office has largely congealed already.  But here is my 10 best list of jazz discs.  Bear in mind that I think Jazz is the heart of music, that 50's bop is the heart of jazz, and that Miles Davis is the heart of it all. 

1.  Miles Davis, Kind of Blue. This is the best selling jazz album, and in this case it really  deserves the honor. 

2.  John Coltrane, A Love Supreme.  I argued against Mr. Heppler's view that this was number two, on the grounds that it is very atypical in structure.  But it is magnificent jazz, and clearly is the 2nd most influential disc. 

3.  Miles Davis Quintet, Cookin'.   Davis' first great quintet, with Trane and the incomparable rhythm section of Red Garland on piano, Paul Chambers on bass, and Philly Joe Jones on drums, it doesn't get better than this.  But Cookin' is one of four albums that present the work of the Quintet on tour.  Any one of them, Workin', Relaxin', or Steamin', would be a great stocking stuffer. 

4.  Wayne Shorter, Speak No Evil.  Shorter would replace Trane in the second great Davis Quintet.  Wayne Shorter was one of the great player/composers of modern jazz.  He is my personal jazz hero.  If you or your Christmas friend has that album, see if they have Night Dreamers of Juju.  Shorter's compositions are spooky and penetrating.

5.  Bill Evans, Sunday at the Village Vanguard.  Cool Jazz.  Subtle.  A place where the soul can rest while the piano does its work.   

6.  Sonny Rollins, Saxophone Colossus. About as much raw power as a brass instrument can produce.  You will be humming the tunes all day. 

7.  Dexter Gordon, Our Man in Paris.  Spend a Night in Tunisia with Gordon, only you're in Paris.  It's raining.  The street is cobblestone.  Everyone is speaking French.   

8.  Cannonball Adderley, Somethin' Else.  Miles Davis as a side man.  Art Blakey on drums.  Love for Sale, at about nine bucks if you are a Barnes & Noble member. 

9.  Oliver Nelson, Blues and the Abstract Truth. Bill Evans on Piano.  Paul Chambers on bass.   Brilliant composition.   

10.  Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section.  See #3 for the rhythm section.  Pepper's wife dragged her husband and Garland, Chambers, and Jones together for a perfect session.  Listen, and be perfected. 

Bias & Diversity in the the Universities

My SDP colleagues Professor Schaff and Jason Heppler  have commented on liberal bias in the academy.  Anyone who has visited a many a college campus in the past three decades, as I have, knows that most of the major public and private university faculties are clearly much further to the left than are the people at large.  Surveys always support this impression.  My friend Anna at Dakota Women calls this complaining on our part.  Well, I suppose that one person's comment is another's complaining or whining.   

The problem with this bias lies not so much in its unfairness, but in the fact that it contradicts principles that persons on the left profess to believe in.  The left has frequently argued for affirmative action in university hiring and admissions on the ground that it promotes a diversity of perspectives.  This argument is the basis of Supreme Court decisions upholding deliberate discrimination by universities in favor of minorities.  I have seen for myself how well it works.  Some years ago I joined the National Association for Ethnic Studies and delivered a paper at their annual conference.  At one panel I attended, a number of persons from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds stepped up to testify about their experiences and perspectives.  Every single one of them told exactly the same story, and expressed the same set of opinions about race, cultural, and equality. 

Much closer to home, I experienced real diversity of thought when I occupied an office just across a narrow hall from a historian, Walter King.  Walter and I were very similar in most demographic details, but when it came to a wide range of political and intellectual questions, we were miles apart.  So we argued for hours at a time.  Much the same was true of my friendship with a sociologist from Nigeria, Olu Oyinlade.  That is what happens when you have a real diversity of perspective.  The liberal bias in the modern academy largely freezes out the most interesting kind of diversity, real differences on the issues that generate the most passion.  All you have to do is look at the reaction of many academics to the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004.  They couldn't believe it would happen, because they never, ever, talked to anyone who would admit to voting Republican. 

Anna says this:

I find it interesting, the way Schaff and Heppler word their complaints about the lack of conservatives in academia - Heppler criticizes "the more personal aspect of ideological bias -- the assumption that all the strangers in the room are liberals." Has it ever occurred to either of them, I wonder, that women feel the same way? People of color? GLBT people? People with disabilities? Why is it that only political conservatives ought to be better represented?

I know of no one who says the latter.  It looks to me like a straw man fallacy.  But the question is not how people feel, but what selection processes are in fact at work in the academy.  Women, persons of color, GLBT persons, and persons with disabilities, all get extra points when applying for admission or for a position.  That is a simple and very consequential fact.  Persons who think that the war in Iraq was the right policy or who believe that affirmative action is bad for minorities would do well to keep their politics a secret, at least until they have been granted tenure.  That is also a fact.

When I came to Northern, the historians and sociologists were, for the most part, liberal to socialist in their leanings.  They were nonetheless eager to welcome me, as a conservative, into the department.  They were scrupulously respectful of and even delighted by honest disagreements.  I learned much from our conversations, and perhaps they profited as well.  The contemporary academy has not taken that as a model.  I humbly submit that this amounts to a decline. 

Lauck Book Signing in Mitchell Saturday

Jon Lauck will be at the McGovern Center on the campus of Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell from 10 am to 1 pm this Saturday (December 15) signing copies of his book, Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High Plains Senate Race.  If you're in the area, be sure to stop by.

The Idea Of The University

Jason has already linked to this column from the Washington Post by one Robert Maranto discussing life as a moderate Republican in academia.  There is much here to chew on, but take a look at this part:

At a Harvard symposium in October, former Harvard president and Clinton Treasury secretary Larry Summers argued that among liberal arts and social science professors at elite graduate universities, Republicans are "the third group," far behind Democrats and even Ralph Nader supporters. Summers mused that in Washington he was "the right half of the left," while at Harvard he found himself "on the right half of the right."

I know how he feels. I spent four years in the 1990s working at the centrist Brookings Institution and for the Clinton administration and felt right at home ideologically. Yet during much of my two decades in academia, I've been on the "far right" as one who thinks that welfare reform helped the poor, that the United States was right to fight and win the Cold War, and that environmental regulations should be balanced against property rights.

All these views -- commonplace in American society and among the political class -- are practically verboten in much of academia.

This gives one a fairly accurate picture of life on many (not all) college campuses today.  The faculty is monolithically on the left, on the far left in some disciplines, and that makes anyone who is moderate to conservative seem outlandish.  Thus a Democrat in good standing like Lawrence Summers, who was in the Clinton administration, becomes a "conservative" because he is a man of moderate politics. 

Law professor Tom Smith reacts to Maranto's piece by speculating why the academy is so far left.  He suggests that universities, with their unthinking, unexamined leftism, have become intellectually boring. Thus bright conservative students not only feel unwelcome in a pervasively liberal atmosphere but also are not intellectually stimulated by professors who relate left-wing tropes as if they are deep thoughts.  For example, see Patrick Deneen's insightful discussion of the lazy "diversity" on campuses, a diversity which asks us to exaggerate our differences to the end of ignoring them.  Not surprisingly this project fails, which leads to calls for ever more "diversity." This faux diversity, Deneen notes, may even work against actual intellectual diversity. 

Deneen offers an explanation for the political/intellectual trends on campus.  It's long, but worth reading.  I have highlighted what I take to be the key phrases.

Maranto notes that people have a tendency to want to surround themselves with people who think like themselves, but he doesn't tell us how we reached a point we are now at. For that we would need a deeper analysis of the modern liberal project and especially the transformation of the idea of a university from a place in which certain kinds of knowledge was transmitted from one generation to the next, to one in which the university came to be an agent of human progress and advancement. We would further need better understanding of what this transformation does to the humanities - those very disciplines that were the conservators and transmittors of ancient learning, and which become superfluous in the new university. Left without a mission or an identity, their only recourse is to demonstrate their hostility to the very thing that they are supposed to teach: and hence, they become critics of past thinkers, of past ideas, and even of books. Each person is charged with making themselves anew, and no limits or ideas of what constitutes human good (or a good life in concert with natural limits and possibilities) can be posited or even intimated. Thoroughgoing human autonomy is the object and aim of the transformed university - and thus, the humanities become the intellectual handmaidens to the modern sciences and their quest to extend human mastery of the world.   

Bear Butte Buffer Zone II

The vote here at Keloland so far stands at four to one in favor of the Governor's proposal to create a commercial-free buffer zone around Bear Butte.  Pat Powers objects on the grounds that it is not the business of government to "limit property rights for religious reasons."  I reply that the religious motives of one of the parties shouldn't matter, so long as the State has a secular motive.  Promoting freedom or even ease of religious practice on the part of a minority is not itself a religious motive. 

Professor Schaff is less certain than I that the Court will agree.  I emphatically agree that the Court's establishment clause jurisprudence is a chaotic mess, and there is no decision so bad that the Court might not arrive at it.  The Court has generally upheld state expenditures if 1) a religious interest is only one of the beneficiaries, and/or 2) the expenditure is necessary for the safety of someone involved.  Thus fire protection covers both the church and the adult bookstore, and if a extra policeman must be hired to direct traffic in front of a Catholic elementary school, that's okay.  Neither would cover the Bear Butte proposal.  However:

Todd Epp points out that the State can argue for the cultural and historical significance of Bear Butte. Since the religious group in question is not Christian or Jewish, I think the Court would be trying to find a way to let this pass; Epp's brief provides a more than adequate secular purpose.

Professor David Newquist argues that the establishment clause is not involved, since the Sioux Nations have the rights to all of West River by the 1868 treaty.  He is certainly right that conceding that point would render moot any establishment clause objection against the State.  But I submit that the State is very unlikely to concede it, and if such a concession is part of the Governor's bill you can kiss the money goodbye. Nor is it likely that the treaty will figure into a case if one arises in the Courts.  However we might resolve this issue, I doubt that the 1868 treaty will be of much help.   

Get A Church

Speaking of religion, here's former minister Mike Huckabee:

"I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

So he left the ministry for politics so he could bring people to Christ?  Someone is traveling in the wrong direction. 

Keep Your Bear Butte Covered

Pat Powers has legal objections to the governor's prosed "buffer zone" around Bear Butte.  I file a concurring opinion to my colleague's post. I have no doubt this action should pass Constitutional muster, but I am not as sure as my colleague that it would get a pass as I put nothing past the Supreme Court when it comes to Establishment Clause jurisprudence. 

Like Lawyer Epp, I think the state stands on firmer ground arguing this is being done for historic and cultural reasons, not for reasons having to do with sacred ground. There is precedent for zoning "buffer zones" around places such as churches, but not specifically around churches or a particular church.  Todd's St. Joseph's Cathedral example would run into problems with the "secular purpose" prong of the Lemon Test (granted, it isn't clear these days what the Court thinks of the Lemon Test). The purpose of the law cannot be to benefit a church (or a sacred site).  There must be secular reasons for the law.  Similarly, in the Kiryas Joel case New York State tried to carve a school district out of a community made up mostly of Satmar Hasidic Jews.  The Court struck down the law on Establishment grounds.  This was too much "accommodation" for one specific religious group.

Mr. Powers is correct to point to the Blaine Amendment language in the South Dakota Constitution that prohibits any public dollars going to religious societies or institutions. This project may run more afoul with the South Dakota Constitution than the First Amendment of our national Constitution.  Perhaps just one more reason to repeal the Blaine Amendment. 

Tortured Definitions

Some prone to castigating the Bush administration for the use of water-boarding knew of the policy in 2002 and raised no objections, according to the Washington Post.  Among those was current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." (snip)

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

The use of this technique has since spawned much agitation on the part of some (including my preferred presidential candidate, John McCain), who accuse the Bush administration of advocating torture.  Of course this is classic question begging (oh no, more logical fallacies!).  Many who call water-boarding torture do so without defining torture and explaining why water-boarding should be included.  This is question begging as it takes something as a given that actually needs to be proven by argument. 

Water-boarding clearly puts the interrogated under severe psychological stress, yet it does not cause any actual physical injury.  So is it torture?  According the United Nations Convention Against Torture, torture is, "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, , is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession...."  This being the case, water-boarding seems to fit the definition and should not be used by civilized peoples. 

But one must be clear.  According to ABC, the US only used this technique three times, and it has been banned by both the military and the CIA.

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director. 

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

While the United States has used to practice only three times, it should not use it at all.   

A Final Note on Logical Fallacies

My esteemed colleague Emeritus Professor David Newquist and I have been at it over the definitions of logical fallacies.  He begins his latest post with this:

I wish Professor Blanchard would stop reading the Northern Valley Beacon...

I can easily see why!  In this latest post he provides a lengthy discourse on the one logical fallacy (out of four) that he didn't get dead wrong. Informal fallacies are defined with some precision in the field of logic.   Academic philosophers may disagree as to whether any particular argument commits a given fallacy, but they are in nearly complete agreement as to the definitions of each fallacy. Professor Newquist carelessly made up his own definitions in order to tar his opponents, and I pointed out that they were way off the mark.  No wonder he wants me to stop reading his blog. 

My colleague appeals to his own authority:

Prof.  Blanchard assumes a prodigious responsibility when he calls into question more than 55 years of the study (including a doctorate), the practice, and teaching of rhetoric. However, the point is that there are more appropriate and effective venues to resolve such accusations than on Internet blogs. 

In academic disputes, personal authority carries no weight.  If someone says that the moon is made of green cheese, or that Mars is a comet, it doesn't matter how long he has taught astronomy or what degrees he has earned.  Professor Newquist provided definitions for the straw man, bifurcation, and equivocation fallacies that were just plain wrong.  Both his sources and mine confirm this.  It is a good thing that, for 55 years of study and teaching, he wasn't working in the field of logic.  Otherwise he would have reason to be embarrassed.   

Bear Butte Buffer Zone and the First Amendment

My Keloland Colleague Pat Powers blogs on Governor Round's proposal to create a buffer zone around Bear Butte, in Western South Dakota.  The buffer zone is intended to protect that site, sacred to Native Americans, from commercial development.  This would require considerable public funds.  From the Rapid City Weekly News:

Rounds wants to blend $250,000 in state funds with $900,000 in federal and private dollars to obtain the easements.

Pat raises some very legitimate questions about public financing for this purpose. 

I think I’m a bit confused as to how it is the place of government to create a buffer zone limiting the property rights for religious reasons. Certainly I have no problem with property owners if they decide to agree to it. But it’s the source of the funds that make me squirm a little. Given that the funds are being proposed to protect “a sacred site,” it seems uncomfortably close to standing in opposition to the First Amendment.

There are two uses of government powers here that are in question: the power to spend for certain purposes, and the power to force land owners to give up some of their rights for those same purposes.  In this case the purpose is to protect the use of the site for religious reasons.  I agree with Pat that both of these exercise of public powers raise establishment clause questions. 

The Establishment Clause, with which the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It clearly prohibits Congress and, under Court precedent, the States,  from establishing National or State Churches, or from spending public money for the advancement of religion. It also prevents governments from endorsing religion, though that is a twentieth century innovation by the Courts and would not have been accepted by the Founders.   

I can easily imagine that one of the land owners affected by this policy might challenge it on establishment clause grounds.  However, I expect the Courts would uphold the policy, and I think that they should do so.  It is very difficult to imagine that Governor Round's policy amounts to an endorsement of Native American religion.  The protection of Bear Butte can be justified on two grounds: it enables a minority of our state citizens to freely practice the religion of their choice, and it preserves a site of considerable historical value.  Both grounds are neutral with regard to the First Amendment. 

A cynical observer might wonder whether this is really about religion at all, and not about the control of land by an organized minority interest in a state where the latter is a constant issue.  But if so, that is a matter of ordinary politics.  A more relevant question is whether the Courts would allow the State to erect a similar buffer zone around the St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church in Hoven.  I am guessing that that would be a harder sell, because a Federal Court would be more likely to view it as an endorsement of religion.  But it would be the same principle and ought to be decided the same way.

It is clear that the State of South Dakota is not required to protect Bear Butte either by the free exercise clause or by anything else in the Constitution.  That clause should not grant religious groups special powers or immunities (see Oregon v. Smith).  It is just a nice thing to do.  Christians interested in establishment clause questions should endorse the Governor's proposal.  It creates a precedent that they might find useful in the future. 

More Diversity Problems for the University of Iowa

Yesterday's Iowa City Press Citizen provided a political snapshot of the University of Iowa.  The university has come under scrutiny after it was learned that history professor and author of Triumph Forsaken, Mark Moyar, was denied a faculty position due to ideological discrimination.  Here are few highlights:

1) Out of the 1,775 UI faculty registered to vote in Johnson County, 1,173 register Democrat (66.1 percent), 397 have no party affiliation (22.4 percent), and 205 are registered Republicans (11.5 percent)
2) According to the article, there are twenty-one departments with at least ten registered faculty voters with one or fewer Republicans, including the College of Law, teaching and learning and the School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
3) There are seven departments with at least ten registered faculty voters with zero registered Republicans, including history, anthropology, and religious studies.
4)  Political science Professor Tim Hagle remarked:  "I think people that get hurt most are the students. They are not getting a balanced view. They get out of college and realize they didn't hear about this or that argument. Or, if students come in with conservative views and the professor shoots down their ideas."
5) History Professor Sarah Hanley, an active participant in various 1960s movements, said she doesn't think the department is biased: 

"I have great faith in the integrity of faculty members to not put political views on students," she said. "I just had a Western civilization class where I could have hammered away on politics, but I didn't. In the history department, you don't talk about politics," Hanley said.

Hanley thinks the UI campus numbers are skewed because Johnson County is heavily Democratic, she said. To participate politically here, you have to be a Democrat, she said, noting that most local public officials are Democrats.

Regardless, she doesn't think it is a bad thing for campuses to lean heavily toward one political party.

I would wonder if Professor Hanley would feel the same way if the history department at Iowa was made up of twenty-one Republicans and zero Democrats.  Therein lies the problem: the lack of exposure to various ideas means students are introduced to narrow sets of arguments and interpretations.  Why do cultural studies seminars lists works from Michael Focault, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri but rarely mention Friedrick A. von Hayek or Francis Fukuyama, who have made their imprints felt on world affairs?  Or others from the conservative intelligentsia like Russell Kirk, Leo Strauss, or Thomas Sowell?  There's also the more personal aspect of ideological bias -- the assumption that all the strangers in the room are liberals.  The result is conservatives who feel marginalized in academia.

Also, see this Washington Post editorial by political science Professor Robert Maranto entitled "As a Republican, I'm on the Fringe."

Another Pro-Surge Convert

Michael Goldfarb:  "There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom."

Quick Hits

See this news story about the one year anniversary of Sen. Johnson's brain hemorrhage. 

And here is a funny/sad story of some very bad accounting in Carver County Minnesota.  HT Jim Lileks.

What's Killing Small Business?

Reason Magazine: "Local officials who simultaneously decry big box stores and national chains while doling out burdensome regulatory structures and complicated permit processes should understand that regulatory burdens hit the smaller, independent places hardest."

Judicial Review and the War Against Terrorism

Jan Crawford Greenburg has an excellent commentary on the recent arguments before the Supreme Court concerning the rights of the Guantanamo detainees.  She argues that the Court will split along the usual lines, with Stevens, Souter, Bryer, and Ginsburg going for the detainees, and Scalia (the Italian Stallion), Thomas, Roberts, and Alito going for Bush and the U.S.  The wild card is Anthony Kennedy.  Greenburg thinks he is likely to listen to his conservative inner self.  I am inclined to agree, but this is a little like guessing the outcome of the next world series. 

I am genuinely conflicted on this one.  On the one hand, I have considerable sympathy for the position of Rivkin and Casey, writing in the Wall Street Journal. 

The Supreme Court heard a spirited argument yesterday on whether foreign enemies, captured and held overseas, are entitled to the protections of the United States Constitution. Since the founding of our republic, the answer to that question has always been an unequivocal "No."

When the U.S. military is considering the occupation of an enemy fortress, they probably ought not to have to get a search warrant.  On the other hand, there is this by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate:

If the rule of law were a religion, habeas corpus would be the first commandment.

The right to have the state justify anyone's incarceration is so fundamental—dating back centuries to the Magna Carta—that in this country it's protected by statute, by the Constitution, and at common law. Today's oral argument in Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States is about nothing less than whether the Bush administration's war on terror—endless in its geographic reach and indefinite across time—will become the instrument of the great writ's demise.

Okay, that's a little off the deep end.  The whole point of keeping the detainees at Guantanamo is to keep them out of the domestic realm where habeas corpus clearly does apply.  But there does seem to be something wrong with keeping these guys indefinitely without charging them with anything.  What if one of them is just an innocent caught in the wrong place at the wrong time? 

Probably the detainees deserve some greater access to ordinary judicial oversight.  But the friends of habeas corpus do their cause no favors by focusing exclusively on the hallowed principles of the rule of law.  What happens if the Courts force the release of someone who them goes on to set loose a dirty bomb, or chemical weapon, or a sack of weapons-grade anthrax on some American city?  At that point, I submit, the vast majority of folks won't give a rat's ass any more about habeas corpus.  They will agree to any measures likely to provide security.  If you want to preserve our civil liberties intact, you must make sure that bomb never goes off.  Ms.Lithwick and her allies should give some thought to that.  They aren't. 

Of straw men, plain logic, faux fascism, and contempt.

My Keloland colleague, Dr. Newquist, swats the ball back into my side of the court.  I accused him of misusing the term "straw man," which indicates an informal logical fallacy.  He replies as follows:

In addition to his addiction to the ad hominem argument, Ken Blanchard loves to indulge in the rhetorical fallacies of bifurcation and equivocation. He gives a very narrow definition of the straw man fallacy and then asserts I was wrong in a definition I gave. Insisting that only his definition is correct, he says mine was wrong. That is called the fallacy of bifurcation.

I defy my colleague to show a single example of an ad hominem in my writing.  Before he goes looking, I should caution him: I mean by ad hominem the actual fallacy and not the common misuse of the word to indicate any personal criticism.  The fallacy (a precisely defined logical term) means refuting an argument by pointing out that someone unpleasant held that view. 

Professor Newquist likes to accuse me and others of logical fallacies but, oddly for a former English professor, he doesn't seem to know what any of these fallacies are. Bifurcation  means pretending that there are only two possible positions when there are many.  Example: "If you don't vote for Obama, you are voting for racism."  It doesn't mean insisting on a narrow definition when a broader one is legitimate.  Equivocation means surreptitiously shifting from one meaning of a term to another within an argument.  Example: "If you aren't in Detroit, you must be somewhere else; and if you are somewhere else, you can't be here."  Hat tip to the Three Stooges.  It can hardly be the case that I am insisting on a single, overly narrow definition and committing equivocation at the same time! 

Professor Newquist defined the "straw man fallacy" in his original post in this way:

It is when one person makes up a bunch of stuff about someone and then attacks that someone for possessing all the fabricated things attributed to him or her.

In my post of Wednesday, I pointed out that he was quite wrong, and provided this definition from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn't endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position believing you have undermined the opponent's actual position.

In his reply to me he offers another definition from this source:

Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.

But that perfectly confirms my "narrow" definition, and gives no support at all to his broader one! I am astonished that he does not see this.   It is true, of course, that many important terms have both a narrow and a broad meaning.  But sometimes the broader meaning emerges from misuse of an originally well-defined term.  The expansion of the meaning of ad hominem from a specific logical fallacy to indicate any personal criticism is an example.  One would have expected an English Professor to be opposed to that sort of thing.  Professor Newquist seems determined to promote it. 

Likewise, in contrast to Professor Newquist and, perhaps, Umberto Eco, I think fascism means fascism.  Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism (I am grateful to David for bringing it to my attention) contains a very convincing description of the culture of fascism, and warns us that it may creep up on us. His purpose is not to condemn contemporary civilization (or any administration) but to alert his readers.  Professor Newquist says this:

Fascism is undergoing a renaissance in the 21^st century.  It has pervaded American politics. Our current regime is fascist in many aspects. It espouses a belligerent nationalism. It is militaristic. It is moving toward totalitarianism with its warrantless wiretaps, its advocacy of torture, its systematic defamations of its opponents and its repressive policies and actions, its control by a corporate hierarchy that is allowed to set policy and rig the economy to only its advantage, It fits the descriptive taxonomy that defines fascism.

I pointed out that this is nonsense.  In all the aspects of policy that Newquist mentions, we were much more inclined to his "fascism" in previous decades than we are today.  In earlier wars much more brutal interrogation techniques were used than any that are suspected today. And in the past, the treatment of prisoners of war was rarely subject to any judicial review.  That is why the current case before the high court, Al Odah v. U.S., has very little case law to fall back on.  American society is much more culturally diverse than it was before.  No one who dislikes President Bush or his policies is afraid to say so.  And now the Supreme Court is, for the second time and quite properly I think, about to review
the rights of detainees in this new kind of war.  We are moving away from what Newquist calls fascism at a steady pace. 

As for "contempt for the people of South Dakota,"  my colleague denies it.  But he said this:

When college freshmen from small communities in South Dakota return home for vacations, they find that their former classmates and friends, except for those who also went off to college, regard them with suspicion and resentment, as leaving the community for college is a snobbish affront. If they succeed and make their way in the outside world, it is regarded as an unforgivable sin. When a political leader goes to Washington, his/her constituents begin to suspect that they are being betrayed. If that leader gains success and recognition, the folks back in the province get resentful and feel neglected and betrayed that anyone would dare fix on horizons beyond their parochial vision. This, among other appeals to petty jealousy and resentment, was used effectively against Tom Daschle, as it was George McGovern before him and crops up against Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

Well, maybe I have a more broad conception of contempt that David has.  But this looks like contempt to me. 

 

Cory, Catholics, Compasses

Cory weighs in on the Golden Compass, doing some good old fashioned laughing at them narrow minded ignorant Catholics. 

If you were a powerful, influential religious organization and could marshal your human and financial resources to do some good at Christmastime, what would you do? What societal ill might you choose to combat? How would you spread some Christian (or Buddhist, or Muslim, or Jewish) love? Feeding the hungry? Healing and comforting the sick? Consoling the grief-stricken? Sheltering the poor? Fighting the corporate killers of Christmas? Oh, so much to do, so many people in need, so much love we can give.... 

--The Sioux Falls Catholic Diocese and Sioux Falls Christian Schools are on a great crusade... against a movie.  

Read the whole thing.   See here for my comments on the controversy.  Cory bases his argument on one article in the Argus and this post by Pat Powers.

Let's take this in order.  It doesn't make the papers much, but the Sioux Fall Diocese and other Catholic organizations spend enormous amounts of time and money feeding the hungry, healing and comforting the sick, and sheltering the poor.  Just think how much good the Avera hospitals do, just as one example.  I don't know of any institutional fight against the "corporate killers of Christmas," but nary a Yuletide season goes by without a homily against a materialist interpretation of Christmas. News outlets don't tend to cover those kinds of stories so Cory hasn't been able to read those articles.  It isn't news because the charitable works of the Church occur every day in uncountable ways. Needless to say commenting on movies is not exactly at the center of what the Church does, but it is something that tends to make the news. 

On to the other matters.  First, Pat Powers is a great guy, but he doesn't speak for the Church.  And what about the actual Church.  If you read the Argus article, here's what it says:

The Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls disagrees. In several publications, including a letter recently sent home with students in the Catholic school system, the diocese cautioned parents and parishioners against the movie and books. (snip)

"In short, when it comes to kids, especially - even adults - I am trying to encourage people to look at these kinds of media critically and with great discernment," said (director diocesan religious education Chris) Burgwald, who read all three books. "I say that because over the course of the trilogy, Pullman makes it very clear he's writing a narrative opposed to the Christian understanding of who God is."

The Church is urging caution.  Not a ban or a boycott (as the Catholic League has).  Just caution.  Makes sense when you are a church and there is a movie out based on a book written to attack your church.  You want to inform and caution.  That strikes me not as ridiculous, but as responsible leadership of a church.  A like minded attitude is coming out of the Archdiocese of Minneapolis-St Paul. 

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is not calling for a boycott but is telling parents, teachers and pastors to "exercise caution," according to spokesman Dennis McGrath. The archdiocese is concerned parents will unwittingly buy the books for their children, thereby giving Pullman a "chance to reach these young minds with his anti-Christ propaganda," McGrath said.

Again, entirely reasonable.  A movie is coming out that attacks the church.  Given the genre of storytelling and the advertising campaign, many parishioners may not be aware of the anti-Catholic/anti-theist nature of the work.  So the Church gives information and urges caution.   And perhaps Cory is not aware that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has actually given a "thumbs up" to the movie.

It just so happens that I was talking to a local priest about this movie last night.  I have not read the books.  He's read all three.  He also told me that one of his fellow priests is reading the trilogy now.  He checked the books out of the Roncalli school library.  That's the Catholic school here in Aberdeen.  This priest said his parish, in this weekend's bulletin, will avail itself parents to ask if they have any questions about the film or books.  They are not taking any position on the film or books, just saying "This movie has sparked controversy.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask."  Quite reasonable.   

The characterization of the Church as ignorant and out of touch on this matter doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny.

Update: Cory responds.  See his post as I have a mild disagreement with him.  And yes, you may call me Cattle King.

Daily Dose Of French Canadian Folk Music

Someone played me the song below yesterday. It is by the Quebec band Mes Aieux, which is roughly "My Ancestors" (yes, I had to look it up). 

Apparently the band is quite in favor of abortion rights despite the negative depiction of abortion in the song.  Still, an interesting dissenting view on modern life. 

The Economist: Give McCain Another Look

The Economist thinks the unsettled nature of the Republican presidential nomination contest should give Republican's reason to give a second look at John McCain.

Mr McCain is such a familiar figure that it is easy to forget how remarkable he is. He fought heroically in Vietnam, spending more than five years as a prisoner-of-war, when many other politicians of his generation discovered, like Dick Cheney, that they had “other priorities”. He has repeatedly risked his political career by backing unpopular causes.

Mr McCain's qualifications extend beyond character. Take experience. His range of interests as a senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign affairs and military issues as anybody in public life. Or take judgment. True, he has a reputation as a hothead. But he's a hothead who cools down. He does not nurse grudges or agonise about vast conspiracies like some of his colleagues in the Senate. He has also been right about some big issues. He was the first senior Republican to criticise George Bush for invading Iraq with too few troops, and the first to call for Donald Rumsfeld's sacking. He is one of the few Republicans to propose sensible policies on immigration and global warming.

The article goes on to compare McCain to other Republican rivals, specifically Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee.  Read the whole thing. 

NPR On Laptop Schools

Yesterday I came across this NPR program from May about "one laptop per child" programs in education.  My position is well documented, but listen to some experts.  There are three guests on the program with the second and third, both professors of education, being of most interest. 

The second guest, Larry Cuban, states that technology enhancement rarely leads to improvement in student performance and "one to one" laptop schools are no exception.  He poses a stark question: given that laptop schools provide little to no educational benefit, school districts should be asking before they proceed with a laptop program, "Do we have a better use for this money?" 

The third guest, Nicholas Negroponte, does not dispute Cuban's assertion that laptops do not, yet, show any measurable increase in educational success.  But, he says, laptops create excitement in the classroom and cut down on truancy.  Also he plays down the importance of testing, saying that testing merely "has a place" in education, suggesting that he thinks measurable outcomes aren't that important.  Negroponte is far more interested in students being "creative" rather than students learning content. 

Give the program a listen and draw your own conclusions. 

Florida and Michigan Lose National Convention Delegates

Professor Schaff and I have frequently argued against front-loading, the practice of states moving their primaries and caucus to earlier in the election year.  The Democratic Party is actually doing something about it, to their credit.  They are trying to enforce rules that two important states have apparently violated.  From USAToday:

A federal judge refused Wednesday to make the Democratic National Committee seat Florida's 210-member delegation to next summer's nominating convention...  [Judge] Hinkle ruled that the national party has a First Amendment "associational right" to set a primary schedule and enforce its rules. He noted that the national party let Iowa and New Hampshire go first and second, by tradition, and took 11 applications for the two other January slots. Florida didn't apply to do so.

The DNC has also imposed what amounts to a ban on Presidential candidates campaigning in Florida, which the candidates are apparently honoring.  The same story is playing out in Michigan.  This means that two of the most important states in the electoral college will have no role in choosing the Democratic nominee for President.  Wow! 

I would like to tell you that Republicans are showing similar gumption, but I can't. 

The Republican National Committee also punished Florida for jumping the Feb. 5 date. But the GOP has taken away only half the state's delegation — 57 votes — and has not banned candidate campaigning in the state.

In this case the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.  What is at stake here is not only the nomination process, but the integrity of national parties.  Of course the Republicans may benefit from their cowardice.  Florida effectively decided the 2000 election, as Ohio did the 2004 election.  How it will affect Florida's voters if the candidates do not appear in their state until after the convention is anyone's guess. 

 

More Presidential Politics

Here's an argument that Mike Huckabee is the Democrats' worst nightmare.  And here's one that Mike Huckabee is the Republicans' worst nightmare.  We report, you decide. 

Here's a funny headline: Bill Clinton: I'd Sit in on Hillary's Cabinet Meetings 'Only If Asked'
How big of him.  I mean, many of us would barge into Cabinet meetings without being asked.  But not Bill.  He has to be asked first.  I suspect Hillary would get to, "Bill, would you like to..." and Bill would be halfway to the Cabinet meeting running at breakneck speed.  What he really means to say is, "I'll give my opinion at the drop of a hat."  He's all modesty that one. 

And here is a touching story about my man McCain. McCain was approached today by a veteran seriously disabled in a motorcycle crash.  The man, Greg, essentially asked McCain whether his life is still worth living.  Here's the writer's take:

I can't imagine a more awkward situation for McCain--having to counsel a complete stranger who, as one other journalist here put it, had essentially just read him a suicide note, and having to do so in front of about 200 people. And McCain's initial attempt was actually a bit awkward, as he mentioned that we are "a Judeo-Christian principled nation" that "believe[s] every life is precious." But McCain soon found his footing, and as he continued to counsel Greg, I noticed that a couple of men in the audience were crying. "All I can tell you," McCain went on, "is that [you have] loving family members, loving neighbors and friends who want to do everything we can to help you live as long and as beautiful a life as possible. And we pray for you. And we cherish you. God bless you." McCain then turned back to the topic at hand--the environment--and took a few more questions, but as the event was ending, he did one final pivot. "Greg," McCain said, "we want you and we love you and we need you and you will be our inspiration with your courage."

I don't know if McCain won any votes today with his performance in Portsmouth--my guess is that he did--but I'd imagine he provided a much-needed glimmer of hope in one man's life. And I can't think of any other presidential candidate who could have done that under the circumstances.

I suspect there are some candidates who could have handled the situation well.  But none could have done any better. 

 

Romney, Religion, And American Politics

Mitt Romney presented a speech on his faith, faith in general, and the role of religion in American politics. You can read the text and see the video at Powerline.  There is commentary galore online, so let me just direct you to Joe K. and Julie Ponzi at NLT and you can go from there. 

I am less enthused than most commentators, but more enthused than some.  Romney gave a fairly sound but not very novel discourse on religion and politics and delivered it in a respectable (if a bit rehearsed) manner.  Just a few comments.

The beginning of the speech is a little too much Mitt.  Was it really necessary to take a trip on Mitt's Magical Faith Journey?  I don't know if people really do ask him all the time about Jesus Christ, but to discuss the nature of Jesus Christ contradicts Romney's argument that it is morality not theology that is politically important.  I understand why he brings it up.  He wants Evangelicals to know that Mitt digs Jesus, a bone of contention between Evangelicals and Mormons.  Still, to be consistent he should have kept his theological opinions to himself.

Later in the speech Romney hits a solid note when he says it is morality based on faith that holds Americans together, not specific doctrine.  This is straight from Tocqueville, who argues:

     The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God. 

Romney develops an idea throughout the speech. Democratic government relies on a moral people able to restrain their passions.  Religion is indispensable support for morality and restraint of passions. Ergo, democratic government needs vibrant religion.

Romney could have taken another lesson from Tocqueville.  Romney says that freedom is good for faith and faith is good for freedom, but he doesn't pursue the implications of that idea.  Tocqueville suggests (I summarize) that freedom is good for faith as faith must stand alone on its own merits.  It cannot be lazy, such as in nations with established churches (as in Europe, as Romney notes, where the embers of faith burn low).  Faith is good for democracy because, as noted above, faith restrains the appetites of the people that may lead them to injustice.  These arguments are implicit not explicit in Romney's presentation. 

Overall, Romney gave a serviceable defense of religion's just place in the public square.  I don't know whether this speech helps him or hurts him politically.  I suspect at this point any attention that is not about what a creep you are is good attention for the candidates.    

Jacks vs. Huskers

Here's some very cool news in the world of South Dakota college football:

A football game three years in the future already has some Mitchell-area fans rearranging their schedules to be in front of a television or at the stadium.

South Dakota State University announced Wednesday that its football team will play Sept. 25, 2010, at the University of Nebraska. The game signals a major step-up in competition for SDSU and has the school’s alumni and fans excited.

South Dakota State last played the Huskers back in 1963 and lost 53-7.  The only problem is who do I cheer for, my alma mater or the school I'm currently attending?

South Dakota's Legal Legacy Of Bigotry

George Will's column today tells the story of how New York State's Blaine Amendment is limiting the activities of a man, Rev. Michael Faulkner, who wants to open a religiously based school in Harlem.  What is the Blaine Amendment? 

Republican James G. Blaine came within 1,047 votes of becoming president. He lost New York, and hence the White House, by that margin to Grover Cleveland in 1884. New York's large Catholic population loathed Republicans after a Presbyterian clergyman, speaking in Blaine's presence, said the Democratic Party's antecedents were ''rum, Romanism and rebellion.''

Protestants resented the impertinence of Catholic immigrants who founded schools that taught Catholicism as forthrightly as public schools then taught Protestantism. Protestants thought a public school should be, in Horace Mann's words, a ''nursery of piety'' - of Protestant piety - dispensing ''judicious religious instruction,'' judiciousness understood as Protestantism.

In 1875, Blaine, hoping anti-Catholicism would propel him to the presidency, unsuccessfully tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to stipulate that no public money shall go to schools ''under the control of any religious sect.'' The pervasive Protestantism was not considered sectarian. Eventually 37 states passed similar amendments to their constitutions. Congress required Blaine provisions in the constitutions of new states entering the union.

South Dakota is one of those states that was required to have a "Blaine Amendment" in its constitution.  It is still there.  The "Blaine" aspects to Article VI, Section 3 are those denying any public funds for religious institutions.  Is it not time to repeal this relic of the bigotries of a bygone era? 

BTW, Will points out that Rev. Faulkner is attempting to have the New York Amendment  thrown out by the courts as a violation of the First Amendment.  There might be a "free exercise" argument here, but it is a weak one.  The proper move, in New York and here, is to remove this ancient bigotry through the democratic process. 

Foreign Policy News

A couple foreign policy articles.  John Bolton gives a devastating critique of the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.  Here is just one criticism:

Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments."

I'll say again that intelligence is useful for tactical moves, but to base one's grand strategy on the murky world of intelligence is asking for trouble.  Read Bolton. 

Our congressman to the north, Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, has just returned from Iraq. 

Rep. Earl Pomeroy says he saw significant security improvements in Iraq during his fifth trip to the country, but said much more is needed.

"I've never felt more hopeful about the success of the effort than coming back from this trip," Pomeroy, D-N.D., told reporters on Wednesday. "At the same time, we need to transition this now, so the United States no longer carries the principal combat and security functions."

One must ask whether a "transition...now" endangers that success Pomeroy witnessed.  Makes me glad I am not president.  And I think you are all with me on that. 

   

A Reply to My Pals Anna, David, et. al.

Anna gently chides me in her recent post, but she does so with such respect that I can't really find much to disagree with.  I appreciate Anna's comment that I am a genuinely nice person.  I like to think so, and I think the same about her.  As regards my use of the word "cripple" in a phone interview with Dave Kranz, I got a kind letter from Darrin H. backing me up. 

Ken, I enjoy your website.  You do a very good job of explaining South Dakota politics.  I think your recent remarks of Tim Johnson were not out of line.  Maybe you could have used a better word than cripple but I think that word somewhat describes Tim Johnson’s health at this time.

Thanks, Darrin.  Darrin went on to give an intelligent and convincing analysis of the upcoming Senate race.  But I think that Anna was right on this point:

The problem with using outdated and slightly insulting words like cripple, as Ken discovered, is that they make you seem like a jerk, even if maybe you're not.

I note that I got a very cordial second note from the person who originally e-mailed me with a criticism of that word. 

On an entirely different topic, I note my esteemed colleague emeritus and Keloland colleague Dr. Newquist's recent post.  I begin with a formal point.  Professor Newquist says this:

Sometimes we refer to a certain stupid verbal phenomenon as the straw man fallacy. It is when one person makes up a bunch of stuff about someone and then attacks that someone for possessing all the fabricated things attributed to him or her.

David is wrong about the "straw man Fallacy."  Here is how the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes that informal fallacy:

You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn't endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position believing you have undermined the opponent's actual position.

Fallacies, formal and informal, are directed against arguments, not against people.  If Professor Newquist wishes to use logically defined terms in his polemic, he should get them right.

I skip ahead to a characteristic Newquistian excess. 

Fascism is undergoing a renaissance in the 21^st century.  It has pervaded American politics. Our current regime is fascist in many aspects. It espouses a belligerent nationalism. It is militaristic. It is moving toward totalitarianism with its warrantless wiretaps, its advocacy of torture, its systematic defamations of its opponents and its repressive policies and actions, its control by a corporate hierarchy that is allowed to set policy and rig the economy to only its advantage, It fits the descriptive taxonomy that defines fascism.

This, if I am allowed to quote Marx, is nonsense on stilts.  Fascism, if it means anything, means an ideology that elevates the nation over the individual, and identifies loyalty to the nation with loyalty to a single, charismatic leader.  Where are the brown shirts marching in lock step?  If we are moving toward totalitarianism, how is it that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have escaped arrest?  How is it that the New York Times has not yet been silenced, not to mention MoveOn.org?  And how is it that one party controls the White House, and the other Congress? 

In fact, Professor Newquist refutes himself. Fascism is by definition a unitary national system.  America remains a Federal Republic.  Newquist acknowledges this in expressing his dislike of his fellow South Dakotans. 

When college freshmen from small communities in South Dakota return home for vacations, they find that their former classmates and friends, except for those who also went off to college, regard them with suspicion and resentment, as leaving the community for college is a snobbish affront... When a political leader goes to

Washington

, his/her constituents begin to suspect that they are being betrayed. If that leader gains success and recognition, the folks back in the province get resentful and feel neglected and betrayed that anyone would dare fix on horizons beyond their parochial vision. This, among other appeals to petty jealousy and resentment, was used effectively against Tom Daschle...

Us folks back in the provinces may be as resentful as Newquist says.  I have written that it was Daschle's big house in Virginia that was his Achilles heal, and I have noted that many South Dakotan politicians get beat because their constituents think their representatives got too big for their britches.  I have also written that this was not a fair criticism of Daschle.   

But to recognize this is to acknowledge that we the people of South Dakota think we own our representatives and not the other way around.  We can get rid of them for no other reason than that they displease us.  The majority of voters in South Dakota didn't give a rat's ass what the rest of the country thought of Daschle, and we won't care what they think of Thune if we decide he has outstayed his welcome.   Perhaps the average Jack and Jill out in the "provinces" deserves the contempt that Newquist has for them.  But if he or she thinks that a political leader is out of line, out they go.  That is about as far from fascism as it is possible to get. 

People who create straw man arguments do so because their opponents arguments are difficult to engaged honestly.  In the case of Professor Newquist, this is hardly necessary.

From The Email Bag

Yesterday I wrote about controversy in Slate magazine over intelligence studies.  Well, here's more fuel for the fire.  This author thinks the attacks on Will Saletan's original article, which argued for a strong genetic connection to intelligence, are ill founded.  Perhaps Saletan's sources are not as suspect as I thought.  Read the articles and decide for yourself.

On another matter, a reader emails this story about a physicist at Iowa State who may have been denied tenure due to his support for Intelligent Design theory.  This story provides much more context.  I do not know enough about this case to have an opinion.  If he was denied tenure simply over his belief in Intelligent Design, that is probably illegitimate.  But there may have been other reasons for denying him tenure, such as his inability to raise research funds, as the article suggests. 

Governor's Budget Message

Gov. Rounds delivered his budget message yesterday.  There were few surprises.  He argued that economic slowdown necessitates some belt tightening by the state.

While revenue from general state taxes is expected to increase 6.4 percent this year, partly because of the effects of the voter-passed increase in the cigarette tax, revenue growth for the next budget year is projected at only 3.8 percent, Rounds said.

Higher fuel prices, rising interest rates on adjustable-rate mortgages and other factors mean South Dakotans have less money to spend on things that are subject to the sales tax, the state's main revenue source, the governor said.

''We're very concerned about what sales tax revenue will do now and in the future,'' he said in his budget speech.

The governor's proposed budget calls for spending a total of $3.55 billion in the next budget year, an increase of $159.2 million from this year.

The governor suggests making up for the revenue shortfall by reducing the increase in school spending and state employee salaries from 3% to 2.5%.

Here's the rundown on education funding.  The governor continues to throw his support behind higher education.

Education dollars: Of the proposed $62.7 million in increased spending of state general tax funds, $35.9 million would be for education from pre-kindergarten through the university level.

For higher education, Rounds supports the Board of Regents' plan to issue up to $65 million in bonds to upgrade science and lab facilities at the six state universities. The state would provide $2.3 million a year, to be matched with money from the campuses, to pay off the bonds. Universities would get additional money for salary increases and a program that improves wireless Internet access for laptops on campuses.

Not surprisingly, some legislators were disappointed with the education budget numbers:

House Democratic leader Dale Hargens of Miller said he would push for a 3 percent increase for those areas Rounds targeted with 2.5 percent.

"The 2.5 isn't going to go over well," he said. "We can find the money."

Rep. Tim Rave, R-Baltic said, "It wouldn't surprise me if the Legislature added some to education."

Be prepared for some last minute dealing at the end of February. 

 

Presidential Follies

As Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama's kindergarten record, the GOP race gets messier as Mike Huckabee continues to surge (but not in New Hampshire).  Powerline comments on Huckabee's explanation of his foreign policy experience (or lack thereof) on the new Imus show.  Here's the transcript:

Imus: Part of the strengths of Senator John McCain, who we talked to yesterday, was his perceived, and perhaps real foreign policy experiences and so on, and you have had little or none, or perhaps you have. Is that a concern?

Huckabee: First of all let me say Senator McCain is an honorable and good man and I enjoy getting to be on the trail with him. And I know we are supposed to be sort of hostile toward one another; I don’t think it has to be like that, and I have long respected him. People will say that people will say, “well, you are a governor, you don’t have much foreign policy experience.” Neither did Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan came as a governor, he had been an actor. But ten years after he was sworn into office, there wasn’t a cold war, the Berlin wall was down, and there wasn’t a Soviet Union. People considered that one of the most important times in American history in terms of our relationship with the world. Certainly governors have more experience than people realize because we do trade missions and we are involved in cultural exchanges, we deal with multinational corporations in bringing jobs, travel extensively. But more importantly, the role of foreign policy is one of character and understanding what your principles are and then surrounding yourself with good advice. And the ultimate thing is, I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

The Holiday Inn line is funny.  But at some point Huckabee has to stop being simply pleasant and funny and actually act presidential.  Perhaps it is just me, but the subject of foreign policy is an important one and not a moment for a one-liner. 

Peter Lawler thinks John McCain has taken too hard a stand on Iraq.  But at the same time he praises McCain for his authenticity.  This, I would argue, is the heart of McCain's appeal.  He says what he believes, damn the dictates of today's opinion polls.  Opinion changes, and a statesman can help change that opinion. 

John Podhoretz argues it is still the Romney-Giuliani show.  He is certainly right that Huckabee is playing the role that should have been played by Fred Thompson.  But, Podhoretz argues, Huckabee's record will not withstand the limelight that comes with his rise in the polls.  Podhoretz concludes with this possible scenario:

I can, however, see one other scenario. Say Giuliani melts down this month, owing to more revelations about the intersection of his private life and his public duties. Or Romney melts down, in part because Huckabee’s rise means he will lose Iowa and therefore make it impossible for him to win every early state and thereby “slingshot” his way into the nomination. Huckabee won’t be there to pick up the pieces, because he speaks to a different electorate.

But John McCain will….

Earmarks

Yesterday 62 Democrats joined House Republicans to send the Intelligence Authorization Act back to committee to remove all earmarks.  Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin was not one of those Democrats.  She chose to vote with her party leadership.  HT David Freddosso.

Romney Speech

Joe K. to Mitt Romney: Don't pull a JFK.

Intelligence Update

A couple weeks ago I posted on a Will Saletan piece in Slate about genetics and intelligence.  There is now a rebuttal to Saletan that is quite damning.  To say the least, Saletan's sources are suspect.  I have updated the original post to include a link to the rebuttal. 

Speaking of intelligence, Max Boot comments on the latest intelligence report regarding the Iranian nuclear program.  Boot suggests taking with a grain of salt the report's conclusion that Iran has discontinued its nuclear program. As he notes, this refers to government programs.  There are still private groups seeking to create a nuclear weapon.  The world of intelligence in inherently murky.  It is best to use intelligence as one piece of information in making policy, but not to base one's policy on intelligence.  See John Keegan's Intelligence In War for a thoughtful history of that subject. 

Leaden, Not Golden, Compass

Mr. Powers jumps all over The Golden Compass, the new children's film.  I had previously heard that Phillip Pullman, author of the book on which the film is based, was motivated to write by a contempt for Christianity and a hatred of C.S. Lewis's overtly Christian Narnia series. This is confirmed in this scathing attack on the film and Pullman.  See also this news story.  Finally, see this work by Raymond Ibrahim about other anti-Christian trends in Hollywood.

It is possible that The Golden Compass is entertaining.  It is also possible that the film is edifying in spite of itself.  One should be wary of avoiding books or films simply because they offend our sensibilities, as they may have artistic merit nonetheless.  But viewers, especially parents, certainly should know when an author has a particular agenda and interpret the work in that light. 

Finally, Someone Willing To Tell The Truth

Clip of the day:

A Taste For Defeat 3: A Democrat Admits the Obvious

I have been pointing out the rather obvious fact that many Democrats have acquired a taste for news of defeat in Iraq.  This is not, of course, because they have any sympathy for the insurgents, or because of any antipathy toward America or its armed forces.  It is, rather, that they are willing to pay any price and bear any burden to see George W. humiliated.  The same goes for making sure that a Republican does not succeed him next year.

It is rather a shock to discover Kurt Anderson making the same points in New York magazine.

For these next eleven months, in other words, I will become crypto-quasi-Jewish—that is, involuntarily asking as I scan each day’s headlines not Is it good for the Jews? but rather Is it bad for the Republicans?

And he gives us lots of good examples.  When even the New York Times had to acknowledge that violence was declining dramatically in Iraq in the wake of Bush's surge policy, and that U.S. troops were already being pulled out, Anderson has mixed feelings.

All excellent news! And also worrisome news for those of us who don’t want another Republican elected president in 2008. The sudden pacification of Iraq is an October Surprise a year early.

But the longing for dismay is not limited to Iraq.

There was the other big piece of profoundly good news on the Times’ front page: “Scientists Bypass Need for Embryo to Get Stem Cells...  If the technique proves safe and reliable, the Christian right’s opposition to embryonic-stem-cell research will be moot.  Awesome.  Except, of course, it will also eliminate one powerful reason for independents and progressive Republicans to vote Democratic.

Whereas Conservatives have been skeptical that signs of progress at the Annapolis peace talks are genuine, Anderson admits that Democrats are afraid they may be genuine. 

In the unlikely event that the jump-started peace process actually does produce a treaty a year from now, with credit going to this administration for making it happen, won’t we and even the Kos mob welcome it as a miraculous world-historical achievement? It’s arguable that such an outcome, if it were to affect the 2008 election, would help Democrats—by reducing the general geopolitical fear factor and reminding Americans that diplomacy can actually work. But even then … some celebrations of the news would be grudging. There are still those on the left, after all, whose pleasure over the end of the Cold War is tainted by the fact that Ronald Reagan helped make it happen.

So what is left for the left to hope for?  A recession. 

Last week, former Treasury secretary Larry Summers rocked his world with a Financial Times piece in which he wrote that “the odds now favor a U.S. recession,” and the New York Times’ front-page lead on Thursday warned of “intensifying worries that the economy may be headed for recession.” Total bummer, right? Yes … um … unless you’d prefer that a Democrat be elected president next year.                                

In itself this does not constitute an argument against voting Democrat.  A reasonable person votes based on what he or she expects a candidate to do, not on what the candidate hopes for.  But it is rather irresponsible of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to deny that the surge is working. If violence is coming down and troops are slowly being withdrawn, it pulls the rug clean out from under the Democratic policy preference.