South Dakota Politics

Anguished English

Out here in Idaho (Garden Valley, to be exact) we passed a housing development that had a phone number for "perspective buyers."  I guess that's who you call if you needed added perspective.  I'll give them a call. 

Updates

Just to give everyone a heads up, I'm in the process of moving to Lincoln, Nebraska, where I'm enrolled in the history graduate program at UNL, so posting will be infrequent until things settle down (which explains why I haven't written anything on KELO blog yet).

I should also note that we have a new way to contact us.  We're phasing out the SDP Hotmail address due to massive levels of political junk and spam mail.  You can now contact each of us individually, and can find the new addresses in the "E-Mail SDP" section on the right side of the blog. 

Little Big PC

I am off traveling and am currently writing from my home away from home, Boise, ID.  Every time I drive across the western United States I am reminded of two things: the American West is the most beautiful place I have ever been and that those who believe in overpopulation are full of crap.  There is plenty of room in Wyoming, although they may not want you moving in. 

We stopped off at Little Big Horn battlefield outside of Hardin, MT.  This is a return visit for me.  The first time was in 2001.  In anticipation of the visit I read an account of the battle by Stephen Ambrose (it must have been in this book) and also the book Son of the Morning Star, which focuses on Custer.  I found both to be quite helpful.  The topography of the battlefield is such that armed with some knowledge of the battle you can easily envision how things went down.  Both of my visits have also included excellent presentations by the Park Service guides who give you the background of the battle. 

This time we stopped off at the "general store" near the battlefield.  This is not a government store, I presume.  One thing struck me about the store.  Of course it sells the typical tourist items: shot glasses, magnets, t-shirts, etc.  Many items, especially the t-shirts, had images mocking George Custer.  One, for example, has Custer running away from Indians with arrows almost embedded in him.  He is on a cell phone and is screaming "Can you hear me now?"  Clever.  Another has Custer next to a brave who has cut off a swath of Custer's hair.  I forget the caption, but it was something about giving Custer a haircut.  There were other items making fun of Custer that I can't recall in enough detail to note them. 

It struck me how the worm of political acceptability has turned.  I suspect that, say, 40 year ago one would still have heard what a great hero Custer was and the t-shirts would have sung his praises and noted the bravery of his men.  Now the "general store" is mostly filled with Indian themed goods (the store might be run by the Crow reservation, which would explain the items in the store) and there are few items solely commemorating the 7th Calvary.  And while in decades past it may have been acceptable to mock the Indian braves (probably with stereotypes of "ignorant savages") now they make fun of George Custer. 

This is a big change.  I am not sure whether it is a change for the worse, a change for the better, or simply a change (to be clear, the end of Indian mocking is a good change).  It did bother me to see Custer mocked as a fool and buffoon whose death is now a subject of humor.  George Custer was many things.  He was arrogant.  He was brash.  His arrogance led to the deaths of many men at Little Bighorn.  But Custer was other things, for example a Civil War hero.  It was just that arrogance and brashness that made him such an effective calvary officer during the war.  This man was at Gettysburg fighting for the Union.  Under Phil Sheridan, Custer helped destroy Confederate calvary during the last year of the war.  Granted, he blundered greatly at Little Bighorn, but should we make fun of this American soldier and by extension ridicule those who served under him?  It bothers me to see the deaths of American soldiers being turned into the object of humor.   

It is possible that I am overreacting.  Perhaps I should have more of a sense of humor about this matter.  Often conservatives tell the political correctness police to lighten up and not take every slight so seriously.  Perhaps it is time Prof. Schaff take a dose of that medicine. 

I'd appreciate thoughts.  Email me at schaffsdp at gmail.com.  I will post thoughtful responses.  Just note that I am out of town and have limited access to computers, so it might be a while before I get to this. 

Update: I just noticed Jason's post above.  Look to the right and you'll see links you can click on to email any of us on the site.  Oh, and GO BIG RED!

Energy Stuff

The Mitchell Daily Republic (free registration required) has published a piece I wrote on energy policy.  The main thing you will learn if you follow the link is that I really need a new publicity photo.

Primary Mischief & Primary Reform

I keep hearing rumors that South Dakota will try to move its primary forward in the next presidential election year, "so that we will matter."  I think that in our case this is a vain strategy.  If every state has its primary while there is still ice on the lake, how many politicians or pundits will paying attention to the Rushmore State, and how many to California?  That is the situation we are headed for, and it is bad news for the Republic.

South Dakota Politics is split on this, two to one.  I believe that our colleague, Mr. Heppler, is in favor of an earlier Dakota Primary, for reasons I sympathize with.  I would love to be interviewed on Fox Report.  Professor Schaff and I are strongly opposed to "front-loading" the primary process.  We need a chance to get to know the candidates, and the series of primaries and caucuses strung out along the election year is an invaluable tool for that.  What happens if the next Dean screams just after he has won a whole boomin' bunch of state primaries? 

Another problem is that the front loading pushes the real winnowing process into the year before the election.  That is already happening now, largely in anticipation of front-loading. 

I am on record in favor of a system of primaries that would balance large states and small states, and keep the process from coming to too early a close. Here is my proposal in brief, from my column in the Aberdeen American News. 

If you really want reform, the way to do it is divide the states into five groups, each including large and small states from every region of the country. Each group would be assigned the first Tuesday of some month from February to June. In subsequent elections the order would be rotated, so everyone gets to go first sooner or later. The purpose would not be to benefit one party or another, or any state over the others, but to do what is best for the Republic.

Apparently, I am not the only one thinking along these lines.  Here is the "Delaware Plan." 

Under the Delaware Plan, the states would be put into four groups  according to population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-sized states, and finally the 12 largest states. These four consolidated primaries would occur on the first Tuesday of each month, beginning in March and ending in June. Although having valuable benefits, the main disadvantage to this plan is candidates having to compete in 12 states in the very first primary, which makes retail politicking harder, and the fact the states are always in the same order. 

My proposal alleviates, somewhat, the problem mentioned above, by beginning a month earlier.  One could just as well go into July.  I think rotating would look more attractive to more states than a simply progressive system.  But I think that any system along these lines would be a remarkable improvement. 
If South Dakota really wants to be important, let both parties climb on this bandwagon.

JASON ADDS:  I should note that I have changed my stance on the subject, and agree with my colleagues that moving the primary forward begets greater problems nationally as we front-load the primaries.  I know I wrote about it somewhere, but I can't seem to locate the exact post.  Edit:  Here's the post, where I commented on California's decision to move their primaries forward.

The Right to Reincarnate

Todd Epp and I have in the past expressed an interest in Buddhism.  I should mention that this was in this life.  So I take some pleasure in scooping him on this story, from the London Times:

Tibet’s living Buddhas have been banned from reincarnation without permission from China’s atheist leaders. The ban is included in new rules intended to assert Beijing’s authority over Tibet’s restive and deeply Buddhist people.

“The so-called reincarnated living Buddha without government approval is illegal and invalid,” according to the order, which comes into effect on September 1.

My reaction?  Thank God, or Amita Buddha, or someone, that we live in a country where living Buddhas like Todd and myself can reincarnate as anyone we darn well please without permission from the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Department of Homeland Security.  Heck, so far a I know you don't even have pay a tax on it, though I haven't yet consulted my accountant on that.  Of course, I wouldn't put it past the Democratic Congress (approval rating negative 18 points) to lay a hazardous waste disposal fee on my next incarnation on account of leaving behind this old body.   The price of liberty really is eternal vigilance. 

Gender Theory and An Assault on Academic Liberty

For a lot of persons in academia these days, the proper response to an unorthodox idea is to utterly destroy the career of the person who suggested it.  Case in Point: one J. Michael Bailey.  Benedict Carey has the story in the New York Times. 

Dr. Bailey is a psychologist at Northwestern University.  Here is his sin against the true faith:

In his book [The Man Who Would Be Queen], he argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women. This idea runs counter to the belief, held by many men who decide to live as women, that they are the victims of a biological mistake — in essence, women trapped in men’s bodies. Dr. Bailey described the alternate theory, which is based on Canadian studies done in the 1980s and 1990s. 

Note that Dr. Bailey was not suggesting that there was anything wrong with persons who want to cross genders; he merely suggested an alternative theory about the psychology behind the desire.  Here was the response:

[D]ays after the book appeared, Lynn Conway, a prominent computer scientist at the University of Michigan, sent out an e-mail message comparing Dr. Bailey’s views to Nazi propaganda. She and other transgender women found the tone of the book abusive, and the theory of motivation it presented to be a recipe for further discrimination... 

Dr. Ben Barres, a neurobiologist at Stanford, said in reference to Dr. Bailey’s thesis in the book, “Bailey seems to make a living by claiming that the things people hold most deeply true are not true.”...

Bailey interviewed four transgendered persons and referred to them in his book under pseudonyms.  He was accused of using them as research subjects without consent.  One person wrote that "she" was one of his interview subjects, and that he had had sex with her. But wait, it gets better.

Andrea James, a Los Angeles-based transgender advocate and consultant, ... downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided. (Dr. Bailey is a divorced father of two.) Ms. James said in an e-mail message that Dr. Bailey’s work exploited vulnerable people, especially children, and that her response echoed his disrespect.

Now I should state at this point that I can take no position on the merits of Dr. Bailey's book.  I do not know whether cross-gender personalities are the result of biologically male desires focused on atypical objects, as I gather he argues, or whether they are the result of a genuinely female personalty, or perhaps a third sexual persona, that naturally develops within some male bodies (and likewise for crossing in the other direction).  Given that sex is grounded in genetics, whereas gender is not, either hypothesis seems plausible.  But the reaction described above is utterly hysterical. 

Fortunately for Dr. Bailey, Alice Dreger, an ethics scholar, is about to release her findings on the case. 

Dr. Dreger...  is a longtime advocate for people born with ambiguous sexuality and has been strongly critical of sex researchers in the past. She said she had presumed that Dr. Bailey was guilty and, after meeting him through a mutual friend, had decided to investigate for herself.

But in her just-completed account, due to be published next year in The Archives of Sexual Behavior, the field’s premier journal, she concluded that the accusations against the psychologist were essentially groundless.

For example, Dr. Dreger found that two of the four women who complained to Northwestern of research violations were not portrayed in the book at all. The two others did know their stories would be used, as they themselves said in their letters to Northwestern.

The accusation of sexual misconduct came five years after the fact, and was not possible to refute or confirm, Dr. Dreger said. It specified a date in 1998 when Dr. Bailey was at his ex-wife’s house, looking after their children, according to dated e-mail messages between the psychologist and his ex-wife, Dr. Dreger found.

I should note, finally, that the viciousness of Dr. Bailey's enemies has nothing to do with their gender assignment or sexual orientation.  It is purely a political phenomena, but it is illiberal and fanatical.  It is radically dangerous to scientific inquiry  and freedom of thought.  Anyone who is liberal in any sense out to strenuously denounce it. 

SDP Jazz Note: Chet

My friend Ken Laster, DJ at In The Groove: Jazz and Beyond, turned me on to emusic, a site where you can download tons of classic jazz for about 35 cents a song.  For ten bucks a month you get 30 mp3 downloads. 

Today I download Chet, by the trumpet player Chet Baker.  I chose the collection mostly because it was listed as an example of piano player Bill Evans as a "sublime sideman".  Evans was my first love among jazzmen, when my old English teacher, Mead Harwell, played him for me along with Italian wine;  I was barely twenty.  But the album also includes an all star list of jazzmen.  Pepper Adams plays baritone sax; Philly Joe Jones, a Miles Davis favorite, plays drums along with Connie Kay.  Herbie Mann plays flute on one track.  One of my favorite jazz guitar players, Kenny Burrell is included. 

With that kind of all star band, you expect a jam session, with each  hero hogging his own space.  What you get instead is a series of penetrating ballads, with everyone acting as if the music is more important than their own egos. 

At 35 cents a song, Chet is diamonds on the cheap. 

Keloland Lunch

Here is a shot from a recent lunch I enjoyed with some of my Keloland colleagues, at Minervas in Sioux Falls. 

From left to right: Bob Schwartz (South Dakota Moderate); Todd Epp (My apology;  I couldn't quite get him out of the picture); Joel Rosenthal (South Dakota Moderate), Beth (Keloland News), Anna (Dakota Woman) and Jeremy (our Keloland Obi Wan). 

Diversity 2: A Correction

My friend and Keloland Colleague, Todd Epp, has this:

If you're not white, male, and Christian, the South Dakota Blogosphere can be a pretty ugly place.  Read these recent "gems" of anti-diversity blogging (I really hate to give traffic to these sites, but you need to read them to believe them):

• The racism of multiculturalism (Sibby Online)
• This Is Why I don't Like Going To The Grocery Store (SD Potty Break)

• What Public 'Charity' Really Breeds (Dakota Voice

• The Downside of Diversity? (SD Politics)

Now I will let the other bloggers speak for themselves, but I do have to wonder if Todd read my post at all, or whether it simply went over his head.  For anyone who did read it, were he of sound mind and unclouded judgment, would surely recognize that I came down on the side of diversity.  I did begin by acknowledging a study that showed the downside of living in diverse neighborhoods. I then tried to show that this didn't mean what racial and ethnic isolationists like Pat Buchanan think it means. 

The odd thing is that I seem to be saying exactly what Todd himself is saying.  Here is Todd:

Are [there] sometimes problems dealing with diversity?  Absolutely.  But diversity is what makes us unique--and strong--as a nation and state and city.  America picks the best from many cultures and makes it its own.

Here is what I said:

It's easy to imagine that the United States could be like South Dakota: comfortable and homogeneous.  All you have to do is forget how all the Norwegians and German Russians and Irish got here and what the adjustment was like.  And you have to forget how empty many places were until these immigrants arrived, and how empty they will become if we try to lock the doors and seal the windows.  And you have to believe the unbelievable: that we can lock out diversity.  It's coming, whether we like it or not.  Our ability to manage it, like we did in the past, will determine our future.

Now I am a bit more honest, I think, about the challenges of diversity. But only a bit.  Besides that, Todd and I seem to be saying exactly the same things.  I knew it was a challenge to disagree with Todd. Agreeing with him is damn near impossible. 

Abortion Politics & Abortion Logic

As usual South Dakota War College alerts us to two pieces of potential legislation on abortion.  My guess on this is that the failure of the last attempt at pro-life legislation has probably poisoned the well.  It may be that the chance for some moderate limitations on abortion, which I am certainly for, is gone for the time being.

Anna, now my Keloland colleague, has a lot of interesting things to say.  I comment here on the logic. 

We have a bunch of legislators who believe they're doctors, scientists, and God, all rolled into one.

The question whether the law should protect a woman's right to an abortion, or the right of the unborn to life, is a human rights question and as such a public question.  Courts and legislatures will decide it.  No one needs any special sort of expertise, let alone Divinity, to have an opinion on that. 

Abortion has existed through virtually all of recorded history, through virtually all societies.

Yes, as have infanticide and other forms of child abuse.  This tells us nothing about whether such things ought to be opposed or not.  I agree with Anna that it is not a matter of whether abortions will occur.  It might be a matter of how often they occur. 

UNFPA states that 68,000 women die every year in developing nations as a result of unsafe, illegal abortions.

I have no idea whether those numbers are accurate or not.  But for those who believe that abortion is infanticide, about a million and a half children die every year in the U.S. alone from safe, legal abortions. 

Anna's arguments are plausible if, and only if, her underlying assumption is true: that the unborn (I am being very careful about the language here) is neither a moral nor a legal person.   But that is precisely the point of contention.  For those who see it otherwise, opposition to abortion is not a character flaw.

The Downside of Diversity?

You can add this to the list of things that everyone knows but that just aren't true.  Diversity is prized social goal across academia, governments, and the business world.  The general idea is that the more we come into content with people of different ethnic, religious, and racial backgrounds, the more tolerant, open-minded, and trusting we will be.  Once we discover for ourselves that "those people" are just people, like ourselves, prejudices will slowly but inevitably melt away.  And then along comes Harvard Political Scientist Robert Putnam to burst the happy, multi-cultured bubble.  Rubin Navarette has this, at Real Clear Politics. 

Putnam has surveyed about 30,000 residents of 41 different communities in the United States -- which he divides up into whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians. The objective was to gauge how much faith these people have in their institutions, how much they trust their neighbors, how often they vote, and how much community involvement they have. The more diverse a community, Putnam reports, the fewer people vote or volunteer and the less they give to charity, contribute to civic projects, trust local government or believe the media. In fact, the more diverse their surroundings, the more likely people are -- in Putnam's words -- to "hunker down" and "pull in like a turtle."

Putnam's findings arrive at a rather unfortunate time, when the U.S. and Europe are struggling with immigration.  His study was immediately seized upon by cultural and racial isolationists as proof that immigration is a mortal threat to America.  "Robert Putnam: Diversity is Our Destruction!" is how Pat Buchanan put it, which is not at all how Robert Putnam put it.  But you get the drift.  There goes the neighborhood.

But in fact Putnam isn't telling us anything we didn't already know.  Immigration is never the cuddly cozy kind of thing you see on public TV, with a motley group of faces smiling up at a purple dinosaur.  I recently enjoyed a marvelous dinner in Boston's North End, which was once English, and then became Irish, and was later overwhelmed by Italians.  The food became progressively better, but not without a lot of heat both in and outside of the kitchens.  It's not easy to adjust to change.  You have to learn to pronounce a whole new set of names, recognize a new set of gestures, and survive a new wave of competitors. 

It's easy to imagine that the United States could be like South Dakota: comfortable and homogeneous.  All you have to do is forget how all the Norwegians and German Russians and Irish got here and what the adjustment was like.  And you have to forget how empty many places were until these immigrants arrived, and how empty they will become if we try to lock the doors and seal the windows.  And you have to believe the unbelievable: that we can lock out diversity.  It's coming, whether we like it or not.  Our ability to manage it, like we did in the past, will determine our future. 

On a more positive note, I heard more different languages during my recent visit to Boston than I have heard anywhere else.  But the people of Boston were astonishingly friendly.  Everywhere we went, perfect strangers would volunteer to help us with directions, or to explain how to navigate the various forms of public transport.  If you want to know how to manage diversity, don't read mutlicultural literature.  Instead, go eat some lobster. 

Lincoln's Statesmanship

See this piece by Allen Guelzo entitled "Prudence, Politics, and the Proclamation" about the statesmanship of Abraham Lincoln.  HT to Peter Schramm, who recommends it's "worth a slow read."

Another Dem Supports The Mission

Another Congressional Democrat has shifted his views on Iraq.  Rep. Brian Baird, one of the Democrats who voted against the authorization to use military force in 2002, has returned from Iraq convinced that General David Petraeus needs more time:

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."

Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.

Baird clearly states there are two criteria that changed his views.  One, a withdrawal would devastate Iraq and be devastating to the region and our national interest.  Second, Baird believes Petraeus has made real progress, and does not want to leave while success can sill be achieved.

This forces Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats into a tough spot.  They had hoped to upend the administration's support on the Hill when Petraeus gives his report in September, but now they must worry about corralling the Blue Dogs and even some original war opponents.  What happens if a significant number of Congressional Democrats say they're willing to stay long to ensure the job is completed properly, while presidential candidates are pressing for an immediate withdrawal?

Manipulative Journalism

Mudville Gazette notes this abuse of power by The Nation, including this quote from Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America:

The Nation violated the trust of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and many of the service members interviewed. Reporters told our members that the focus of this piece was their experience in Iraq generally, not civilian casualties specifically. Many of the veterans involved spent hours talking to Ms. Al-Arian and shared deeply personal recollections on a variety of subjects, only to have their experiences misrepresented and/or isolated. The most graphic recollections were removed from context and used to bolster a preconceived conclusion by the authors about the patterns and frequency of civilian deaths. Critical facts were obscured or omitted entirely. This entire piece is a glaring example of the type of low-quality journalism that has been all too common in the coverage of the war in Iraq since it began.

Will We Love Huckabee?

It is a sign of how much politics has come to resemble show business in the U.S. that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is suddenly on the charts, having placed second in the meaningless Iowa straw poll.  Brian Karney has this, in the Wall Street Journal:

A week ago, Mike Huckabee was having trouble getting potential donors to return his calls. But after coming in a surprise second in the Iowa straw poll last weekend, the former Arkansas governor is on a media and fund-raising blitz. The man who greets me, with a firm handshake and a warm smile, is physically unassuming and seems slightly too small for the suit he's wearing--which he may be, having famously lost more than 100 pounds after being diagnosed with Type II diabetes a few years back.

I have taken some interest in Huckabee's campaign, if only because we're homeboys: he was born in central Arkansas, yours truly in the Northeast corner of that bastion of the Confederacy.  You can see one of my posts here, which focuses on the disturbing parallels between the once and future Arkansans turned Presidential contenders.  If anything, Huckabee's famous weight loss might be his most compelling qualification for the Presidency.  I remember with a vague feeling of horror a picture of President Clinton in swim trunks. 

It might be Huckabee's only qualification.  Karney's interview is subtly devastating.  Here is a sample:

One central theme of Mr. Huckabee's campaign that he hasn't mentioned yet is his support for the Fair Tax, a proposal to replace the federal income tax with a sales tax of either 23% or 30%, depending on how you count. So I ask him if he really expects the repeal of the 16th Amendment, the one that granted the federal government the authority to levy income taxes in the first place. "I hope we would [repeal it]. That's the whole point." But hope, of course, is not a plan. Does he have one? "I'd go directly to the people, sell it to them, and then ask them to sell it to Congress."

It goes on at some length: vast proposals tottering on half-vast thinking.  But of course Presidential campaigns are not fought or won on concrete proposals.  They turn on the "vision thing," as Bush 41 called it: contrasting packages of images and rhetorical flourishes.  We punch the chad out for the candidate who gives us the most attractive impression of who he is and what the country ought to be or do. 

Huckabee's offering so far is a standard image straddle.  On the one hand, he is the real thing for Republicans:

"If the Republicans have a chance next year," Mr. Huckabee says, "the criteria are:

No. 1, someone who can communicate our message to the people of our country and win them back, because we've lost a lot of them. 

"No. 2, it's someone who has consistency on the principles and the core values that have caused people to be Republican. That includes the sanctity of life, it includes fiscal conservativism. It certainly includes an adherence to the traditional concept of marriage. It means respect for the Second Amendment. Those are issues that caused a lot of middle America and the South to go Republican."

But if he is the true conservative, he is no ideologue:

"We have to show that we are also problem-solvers, not just ideologues. People are not going to tolerate a government that just is led by people who just believe something. They want a government that is led by people who can do something. And all the beliefs in the world don't change the dynamics if we're unable to function and function effectively."

That, as Mark Twain said of Wagner's music, "is not as bad as it sounds."  It is a plausible recipe for winning the nomination, and then winning the election.  His strategy is the same as Bill Clinton's when he began his run in the early 90's: hope that the big boys take themselves out, and then emerge as the best second-tier choice. 

But it's probably too late for that.  It is unlikely that Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Romney will all collapse.  And unlike Bill Clinton, Huckabee has no national image to bank on.  Besides, he's from Arkansas.  Are we really going to try that again?  Ms. Clinton knew better than to try it.