South Dakota Politics

Roadsigns You Can Really Use

Look for these on a road near you, from dustbury.com.  Hat Tip to intrepid reader K.

My favorite is the Ninja. 

A Taste for Defeat 2: Democrats Fail to Surrender

The inestimable Powerline takes the prize for best blog writing this year:

"Democrats Unable to Bring Troops Home"  That's the risible headline that the Associated Press attaches to its account of the Democrats' so-far-unsuccessful effort to surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq.

If you think about it, it isn't easy to attempt to surrender, but fail. The best analogy I can think of is the first Gulf War, when groups of Saddam's soldiers were seen following unmanned drones with their hands in the air, in a futile effort to be taken prisoner. Little did we know then that just a few years later, a majority in Congress would try to surrender to al Qaeda at the very moment when our troops are crushing them. At least Saddam's soldiers had an excuse: they were losing.

The New York Times is in a particular hurry to surrender. 

There have been some advances since President Bush sought to salvage his misadventure by sending even more troops into Iraq. Violence has declined and Al Qaeda in Iraq is said to be weaker. But Mr. Bush’s main argument for his escalation — that it would create political space for Iraqis to work together and achieve national reconciliation — has proved wrong.

Those first two sentences are unintentionally revealing.  Bush's surge strategy was designed to "salvage his misadventure."  I doubt very much if that was the way Bush saw it.  He was trying to make sure that the U.S. wins.  But that is the way the Times sees it.  What is at stake for them is whether Bush wins or loses.  That "violence has declined" is a concession.  What it refers to is the fact that U.S. and Iraqi civilian deaths have been dramatically reduced.  "Al Qaeda is said to be weaker" refers to the fact that the Iraqi tribes have turned against Al Qaeda, and that organization has been all but eradicated in Iraq.  I guess that is weaker.   Having achieved this, we are now supposed to throw in the towel because the Times isn't satisfied with political progress in the Iraqi government?  With a much improved security situation, does it really make sense not to give this thing some more time?

The Times is quite right to warn that the good news might not last.  What they are afraid of is that it will last.  They want us out quick, before Bush has a chance to salvage his misadventure.  That is a taste for defeat. 

SDWC's Quote of the Day

South Dakota War College:  Quotes of the day: On The Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy

Whoops!

Badlands Blue excoriates John Thune for contemplating voting against cloture on the Farm Bill.  Whoops.  Thune voted for cloture, with the Democrats and against the Bush administration, on the cloture vote (which ended up failing).  In a related story Tim Johnson makes the implausible claim that Democrats are opposing extra amendments because they think only germane amendments should be attached to the bill. 

Johnson disagreed. Only germane amendments have a right to be debated and voted on, he said.

"If every time you get a bill, medical malpractice and immigration law and everything in between is going to be considered, that obviously is a recipe for inaction," Johnson said.

Yet non-germane amendments are common in Congress, especially in the Senate.  I suspect Sen. Johnson will stick to his position until the next time it suits his party to attach a non-germane amendment to a particular bill.  For example, perhaps Sen. Johnson will object to the Democratic tactic of attaching their vetoed Labor-HHS spending bill to defense spending in an attempt to force Bush to sign into law spending he disagrees with in order to get the defense spending he wants.  After all, how is Labor-HHS spending germane to defense spending?  Should these not each be judged on individual merits?  But, I do not object to the Democrat's tactic.  This sort of thing happens all the time in fights between Congress and the President, especially when there is divided government.  But I am not the one complaining about non-germaneness. 

SDP Jazz Note: NPR Jazz and Blues

Check out NPR's Jazz & Blues page.  It is a treasure house of contemporary and classic jazz.  If you go to this page you can listen to Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong singing Autumn in New York.  As I have been building my jazz library, I am sure I have acquired 20 or 30 versions of that number.  Jazz is really about melody.  No form of music has taken the melody more seriously, nor more frequently insulted it.  Singing runs no risk of the latter.  The contrast between Fitzgerald's perfectly smooth voice, and Armstrong's sandpapered singing is delicious.  Scroll down and you can listen to some Trane.  Life is good.

Funeral Picketing and Free Speech

The Phelpsians, God bless 'em, are a Baptist church consisting of about seventy-five stout souls.  From Fox:

The group believes that U.S. deaths in the Iraq war are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. They say they are entitled to protest at funerals under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.

Picketing at funerals is what has earned them their fifteen minutes of fame, and now an $11 million judgment against them in a court of law.  The Phelpsians (not to be confused with Jim Phelps, team leader for Mission Impossible), have made a habit of protesting outside the funerals of American soldiers who were killed in Iraq.  They carried signs such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "God Hates Fags." 

A jury agreed. On Wednesday, the church and three of its leaders _ Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis _ were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress. Jurors awarded Snyder $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.

Albert Snyder sued the Topeka, Kan., church after a protest last year at the funeral of his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. He claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.

Mr. Snyder, for whom I have nothing but sympathy, is unlikely to see much of that money.  In the first place, the whole crawlin' lot of Phelpsians have about a million between them, including the Church property, their homes, and their bank accounts.  In the second place, I am sure they are right that the judgment will be overturned. 

Eugene Volokh has a series of posts on the case that amount to a legal brief.  Go there if you want the itemized argument against the judgment.  I will pound more directly on the nail. 

First, let me point out that the Phelpsians are the dullest of blades in the Church kitchen, and they could do with a good scrubbing.  A reasonable person of Biblical faith can believe that God disapproves of homosexual acts.  Only a full-tilt moron can believe that the Biblical God hates homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter.  Moreover, to bring their case to the site of grieving families who have nothing to do with America's policies on homosexuality suggests a worm-infested consciousness. 

That said, freedom of speech and assembly are not subject to qualification because the blathering assembly is offensive to someone.  The Phelpsians kept their signs 1000 feet away from the funeral itself.  Mr. Snyder admits that he did not see the signs during the funeral, but only in the media on the day after.  Was a thousand feet enough?  State and local governments are allowed to define what is a public forum for purposes of free speech (Main Street, a public park) and what is not (private property, public hospital grounds, etc.).  The circle of privacy can certainly be drawn around a funeral location, and can be extended beyond a thousand feet if that is judged reasonable. 

What government can't do is to exclude from that zone only speech that is offensive, or outrageous, or causes emotional distress.  That was the basis of the judgment in this case, and it clearly amounts to content regulation.  The Phelpsians were slapped with an $11 million fine not because they said what they said where they said it, but because what they said in that place was hurtful.  That is content regulation, and the First Amendment does not allow it. 

The Phelpsians are altogether annoying.  But free speech means that people have a right to say, print, and think annoying things.  If the judgment in this case is allowed to become precedent, it could easily be used against to exact punitive judgments against anti-abortion protesters or anti-war protesters.  Heck, I could sue Greenpeace, or my friend and neighbor Jim Seeber for the bumper stickers on his Prius.  The way to deal with the Phelpsians of this world is to arrest them if they step across the line between public forums and private venues.  Lawsuits of this kind are a threat to everyone's freedom.

Lauck's Book Reviewed by The Hill

Jon Lauck's Daschle Vs. Thune: The Anatomy of a High Plains Senate Race is reviewed in today's Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill.  Excerpt:

Lauck is clearly willing to endure howls of outrage from fellow academics by purporting to write an unbiased book when he obviously favors one of the candidates. Lauck will not endear himself to historians by quoting conservative historian Leo Ribuffo that the “tendency toward glib moralizing from a left liberal or radical perspective has affected American historical writing for the worse.”

Nevertheless, Lauck pulls off his audacious task by producing a book that is generally even-handed, meticulously researched and historically illuminating.

For my part, I’m willing to let historians fight among themselves over Lauck’s book while I savor his engrossing account of the hard-fought Daschle-Thune face-off, which The New York Times called “the other big race of 2004” after the presidential election. 

Lauck accurately places the Daschle-Thune battle in a historical context of the post-Reagan era, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and in the midst of the greatest projection of American military power since Vietnam.

“The 2004 South Dakota Senate race was fought over the scarred battlefields left by the 1960s and the Reagan revolution, with Daschle defending a remnant of the old order while Thune carried the banner of Reaganism,” he writes.

His detailed description of the two candidates’ personal and political background and their parallel struggles to achieve power makes for fascinating reading. Daschle, who became majority leader in 2001 when Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords defected from the GOP, and then minority leader again when Republicans regained the majority in January 2002, was handicapped by his obligation to his Senate conference, Lauck writes.

More Good News From Iraq

Here are a couple reports filled with good news from Iraq.  In this one the reporter states that some Marines prefer to patrol without body armor (although they are not yet allowed to).  That is an indication of how safe they feel.  Michael Yon, an independent journalist, reports on a Catholic mass attended by US soldiers and both Christian and Muslim Iraqis.  The mass was full of the usual stuff: prayers, communion, girls pulling each others' hair.

Update: Jason beat me to the Yon story by minutes.  And Prof. Blanchard and I wore the same outfit today.  How embarrassing.

Iraqis Call on Christians to Come Home

Last week we noted Michael Yon's amazing photograph of Muslims and Christians restoring a cross atop the dome of St. John's Church in Baghdad.  Now that the church has opened, Muslims have sent a message to their Christian countrymen -- come home:

Most Reverend Shlemon Warduni, Auxiliary Bishop of the St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Diocese for Chaldeans and Assyrians in Iraq officiated standing directly beneath the dome under the Chaldean cross. Speaking in both Arabic and English, Bishop Warduni thanked those American soldiers sitting in the pews for their sacrifices. Again and again, throughout the service, he thanked the Americans.

LTC Stephen Michael at St John’s. LTC Michael told me today that when al Qaeda came to Dora, they began harassing Christians first, charging them “rent.” It was the local Muslims, according to LTC Michael, who first came to him for help to protect the Christians in his area. That’s right. LTC Michael told me more than once that the Muslims reached out to him to protect the Christians from al Qaeda. Real Muslims here are quick to say that al Qaeda members are not true Muslims. From charging “rent,” al Qaeda’s harassment escalated to killing Christians, and also Muslims. Untold thousands of Christians and Muslims fled Baghdad in the wake of the darkness of civil war. Most of the Christians are gone now; having fled to Syria, Jordan or Northern Iraq.

...

Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.”

Life hasn't always been so good for Iraqi Christians.  Be sure to read Yon's full post on the topic.

UPDATE:  Historian Victor Davis Hanson identifies the new debate over Iraq.

"I'm Just A Girl Who Can't Say No"

Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin will not rule out a run for governor in 2010. 

"I am focused on 2008 and so I want to seek re-election to the House of Representatives, that's my intent," Herseth Sandlin, a Democrat, said in response to a question about her ambitions for the state's top job. She made the comments on a telephone conference call with reporters.

"I really haven't looked much beyond that, but I don't want to close off any opportunities to serve the state in 2010 and beyond," she said.

Will Rep. Herseth-Sandlin give up the life of Washington, DC to spend 4-8 years in Pierre?  And what does Mr. Sandlin think of that?  After all, how ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen DC? 

Here Come the Timetables, Round 36

Over the summer months Democrats tried multiple times to enact timetables for withdrawal from Iraq.  They failed, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declaring on the floor of the Senate that they had been defeated.  They backed off even when the early days of the surge marked an increase in violence, their opportune moment to fracture the GOP.

Yet after the successful gains following the surge, the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the drop in violence, the slow maneuverings of the Maliki government to take up reconciliation, the abandonment of western Iraq by al-Qaeda, and senior al-Qaeda membership reaching room temperature, one might think the Democrats would reconsider their plan to declare defeat.  But, we'd be wrong if we thought that:

The Democratic-led House of Representatives defied a White House veto threat Wednesday and inserted timelines for an immediate troop withdrawal in a 50 billion dollar Iraq war funding bill.

The House voted 218 to 203 to pass the emergency war budget, calling for a pullback of most combat troops to start within 30 days, with a goal of completion by December 15, 2008.

President George W. Bush, who has thwarted every previous Democratic attempt to change his war policy, has repeatedly warned he will never accept mandated troop withdrawal timelines.

The vote, the latest drama in a prolonged showdown between Bush and Democrats over the war, was largely symbolic, however, as the bill is considered dead on arrival in the Senate.

And so we're back where we were earlier this spring.  If the bill makes it through the Senate, the White House will veto it and Congress won't be able to override it.  Their hard line on Iraq this summer alienated Congressional Republicans, some of whom supported a change in the administration's war policy.  After pulling their all-nighter stunt and yanking the defense appropriation off the floor, the Democrats followed with a character attack on General Petraeus, led by Hillary Clinton who claimed she needed a "willful suspension of disbelief" to trust the general the Senate had overwhelmingly voted to confirm.  Let the Democrats try to set timetables, but nothing will alter the war policy unless they have the courage to completely defund the war effort.  Looks like Lieberman was right. 

SDP Jazz Note: Joe Lovano Coming to Sioux Falls

I think me and Hep are going to meet in Sioux Falls in January to see the Joe Lovano Quartet at the Orpheum Theater.  Lovano is a superb sax man.  From his website, I see that he plays on a recent release by McCoy Tyner, famous as John Coltrane's pianist.  You can sample his playing at Daily Motion.  In the clip, he is backed by George Mraz on bass, and Al Foster on drums.  To the right is a photo of the "Sax Summit" at Birdland. 

A Pitcher of Spitzer on Immigration

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has managed to drive the Albany Statehouse right into the toilet with his proposal to give illegal aliens undocumented workers a valid driver's license.  But not before forcing the Clinton for President bus clean off the road. 

Elected a year ago with 69 percent of the vote (and the widest victory margin in state history), Spitzer can now claim support from just 25 percent of voters. Almost twice that, 49 percent, say they'd back "someone else," were the next gubernatorial election held today.  Also, Spitzer's job-performance rating is now 2-1 negative. And nearly half of all voters (45 percent) think the state is headed in the wrong direction.

"Eliot Spitzer's standing with voters has fallen faster and further than any politician in recent New York history," Siena spokesman Steven Greenberg said.

As my SDP colleague Mr. Heppler points out, Hillary was all over the Ouija board on this one.  During the infamous debate she took several positions.  A day later, she explicitly endorsed Spitzer's proposal.  Now, after weeks of indecision, she has come out squarely against it.  The Whitewater Ouija finally came to rest on "No." Another incident like this, and the pointer will move to "Good Bye."

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Madam Hillary, at least in part:

"As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

The real problem is the underlying immigration regime.  But it isn't broken.  It is functioning in exactly the way it is intended to function: it brings in a load of cheap workers and potential Democrats every day, thus pleasing powerful interests in both political parties. 

Everyone knows what good policy would look like.  We need first to gain effective control of the borders through increased security, employer sanctions, and serious penalties for those activist who work to subvert American laws.  We should use this not to close the borders, but to ensure a steady but manageable supply of new workers for the American economy.  Only after both are achieved should we turn to the task of documenting the country's undocumented workers. 

It is quite true that a vast majority of Americans oppose "amnesty" for illegals.  That would appear to be true even in blue state New York.  But that is so primarily because no one trusts the government to act honestly on the subject.  After all, until recently we clearly weren't enforcing existing immigration laws.  To the degree that Bush has recently done some real border tightening, the results have been impressive.  But is this more than show?  Most Americans oppose "comprehensive" reform for two reasons.  They don't want to reward people who break the laws, and they think, with good reason, that comprehensive reform would turn out to be all amnesty and no real border enforcement. 

Immigration is clearly a good thing.  It has been one of America's historical strengths.  It supplies industries that otherwise can't get labor.  It promotes population growth, which is vital to America's future.  Immigrants always assimilate sooner or later; it is only the large number of immigrants flowing over the southern border daily that disguises this process among Latinos.  But our citizens have a right to know that the laws will be faithfully executed.  The party that recognizes these facts first stands to gain a great advantage.

New Business In Aberdeen

Apparently Mike Rounds will be in Aberdeen on Monday for the announcement of the opening of a wind turbine plant in here.  I understand the plant will start with 250 jobs paying around $15 and hour.  Life is good in Aberdeen.

Update: John Thune will also be at the event.  Note this article on Thune and wind energy. 

Politics, Memory, and the 1960s

From the latest issue of Newsweek comes this question:  "The 1968 election is four decades old, and yet we're still rehashing that moment—that era—in the 2008 contest. Why do we come back to it? And why won't it leave us alone?"  Check out the whole thing.

What Would Buy Your Vote?

Politico:  "Two-thirds say they'll do it for a year's tuition. And for a few, even an iPod touch will do.  That's what NYU students said they'd take in exchange for their right to vote in the next presidential election, a recent survey by an NYU journalism class found.  Only 20 percent said they'd exchange their vote for an iPod touch."  Thank goodness it's only twenty percent.  I thought we had a real problem on our hands.

Clinton: No to Licenses for Illegals

She was for it (or wasn't she?) before she was against it:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday came out against granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after weeks of pressure in the presidential race to take a position on a now-failed ID plan from her home state governor.

Clinton has faced criticism from candidates in both parties for her noncommittal answers on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's attempt to allow illegal immigrants in his state to receive driver's licenses. Spitzer abandoned the effort Wednesday.

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," Clinton said in a statement. "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

Clinton stumbled when asked about the issue during a Democratic debate two weeks ago, and her new position comes the day before another debate where opponents are expected to raise the issue again.

UPDATE:  More thoughts from the inimitable Ed Morrissey.

Profiles in Character

I read with great interest Jon Schaff's post below about John McCain and character in politics, and have a few of my own observations about character, politics, and John McCain. 

In politics, character counts.  Politicians and opinion leaders today don't focus on this any longer.  Part of it stems from the 1960s ideology that disengages morality, virtue, and honor from public policy.  Part of it has to do with the politics of public policy: deal with issues facing the country, deal with the economy, satisfy the passions of the voters.  With those goals in mind, there's no need for saints in office.

Divorcing character and politics, however, is inevitably bad for politics.  Separating the two is not something the Founders would have considered.  The members of the Constitutional Convention worried greatly about the office of the president, where all executive power would be housed.  For the republic they envisioned, power was both necessary and dangerous; necessary because "a more perfect Union" required an active government, dangerous because power can be abused regardless of legal limits placed on it.  The establishment of the executive and its future depended on the first man who held the office and who would initiate good habits of governance.  The tradition that would be established would become custom, they believed, so that even individuals of lesser virtue would be compelled to uphold the standard.  That man was General George Washington.  The citizens of America regarded Washington very highly.  He was bold, dedicated, loyal, full of integrity, and never abrogated his responsibilities.  He believed in self-government, understood people had to govern their passions, and earned the trust of his fellow citizens.  We don't need superhuman figures in American politics, but Washington reminds us that without him we would not have developed laws that make the need for great people rare.  This doesn't mean we cannot do without good individuals.  As citizens, we should demand that politicians be good and honest.  We should expect them to not sway with public opinion. Character sometimes means doing the right thing when not forced to.

We might also think to ancient Rome and Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, whose name now graces cities in America (Cincinnatus, New York; Cincinnati, Ohio).  Cincinnatus served as consul in 460 BC and became a Roman dictator in 458 BC and 439 BC.  When tribes from the east and southeast began to heckle Rome, the Roman Senate requested Cincinnatus to assume the dictatorship over Rome and save the city.  As the story goes, Cincinnatus had started a small farm that he labored over on his own, and knew leaving meant his family may starve if crops went unsown.  Yet he assented to their request and went on to defeat the tribes in sixteen days.  As a testament to his character, he immediately resigned himself of absolute authority after the end of the crisis.  When the plebeian revolt erupted in 439 BC, the Senate again called on him to serve as dictator and squelched the uprising.  After the war, Cincinnatus again resigned and went back to his farm.  Livy, writing in his Ab Urbe Condita, said this when introducing Cincinnatus:  ". . . it was determined that a dictator should be appointed to retrieve their shattered fortunes.  Lucious Quinctius Cincinnatus was appointed by universal consent.  It is worthwhile for those persons who despise all things human in comparison with riches, and who suppose that there is no room for exalted honour, or for virtue, except where riches abound in great profusion, to listen to the following . . ."  The Roman Senate explicitly chose someone of strong character and honor, somebody they could trust.  It's with little wonder why the Society of Cincinnati was founded after the American Revolution, and first presided over by none other than George Washington.

McCain's "maverick" tendency has annoyed many Republicans, including myself, and I would certainly include myself on the list of McCain's conservative detractors. Like Dr. Schaff, I share the concern over the McCain-Feingold Act, among other things.  But his willingness to go against the tide is respectable, and on several occasions he has displayed extraordinary courage and integrity, not the least of which includes his Vietnam heroism. No candidate is perfect.  Rudy Giuliani had advocated government-funded abortions.  Mitt Romney has taken several peregrinations on social issues. McCain has McCain-Feingold and skepticism about tax cuts.  But it's not always about issues.  McCain doesn't necessarily deserve the presidency just because of courage and character, but does teach us that some politicians still act with such virtues and we should be mindful to note that.  Conservatives shouldn't give up on McCain; indeed, Jonah Goldberg pleaded with conservative back in April to "don't ignore McCain."  The old maxim is still true: in politics, character counts.  Let us judge our politicians on that.

For the record, here are some of the presidential candidates South Dakota's politicians have endorsed:

Larry Pressler: Rudy Giuliani
Tom Daschle: Barack Obama
Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin: John Edwards
John Thune: John McCain
George McGovern: Hillary Clinton
Mike Rounds: Mike Huckabee
Jim Abdnor: Would like to see Newt Gingrich run
Jim Abourezk: Undecided, but would like to see Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel

Source:  Dave Kranz, "Endorsing Giuliani: Pressler remembers candidates' help during ABSCAM," Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 17 October 2007.

Irrationality And Vulgarity In Our Political Speech

Two pieces worth reading today on different subjects, but, I propose, with a common theme.  Peter Berkowitz writes on the irrationality of Bush hatred. He sums up:

In short, Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims--who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance--to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.

Dennis Prager writes about the vulgar language of the 40th Anniversary issue of Rolling Stone magazine. Just a couple examples Prager notes:

George Clooney: " . . . my sister and I were quizzed on s--t." "Now you're going to hear about all this s--t." "What the f--k's wrong with you?" China "doesn't give a s--t . . ." "I don't give a s--t." "This war is bulls--t."

Jon Stewart: "We have a s--tload of guns." " . . . that f--ked up everything." "We f--king declared war on 'em." " . . . the whole f--king thing's ours." "Two vandals . . . can f--k up your way of life." "I'll take those odds every f--king day."

What do these columns have in common?  The baseness of our political language.  Unable or unwilling to articulate an coherent and reasoned argument against Bush, many on the left, even intellectuals as Berkowitz notes, resort to demonizing and fear mongering.  Surely something similar can be observed on the right.  This demonization substitutes for taking our political opponents seriously and thinking through their arguments and coming up with counter arguments.  How much easier give in to passion and to say my opponent is evil or simply a criminal. 

What about the vulgar language?  Bereft of actual command of the English language and, again, unable or unwilling to offer serious and sober comments, profanity is the dummy's approach to articulation.  I have a good friend who was a theater major at an elite school as an undergrad.  He tells me that his theater professors regularly told the students that vulgarity is usually (not always) the choice for those without real writing talent (perhaps the television show Deadwood is the exception that proves the rule).   

Update: An emailer writes in:

I liked your article.  As a Spanish teacher, I occasionally have
students ask if I know how to swear in Spanish.  I say I do.  Then they
ask if I can teach them.  I tell them I can.  They wait and then ask if
I will teach them.  I say no.  They ask why not?  I tell them:
Profanity is nothing more than ignorance vocalized.  This usually gets a
blank stare.

So What's In It For Me?

Badlands Blue notes that Senator Johnson is working for redistricting reform. I happen to think this is essential for the good of our democracy.  Gerrymandering has rendered most congressional districts beyond challenge.  Most congressional districts are dominated by one party or the other.  Two results follow.  First, congressmen are insulated from broad public opinion as their districts to not accurately reflect that opinion.  Second, our Congress is more partisan and ideological than the population at large since that is the way for most members of the House to get re-elected, given the partisan imbalance of their districts. 

But Mr. Powers says, "Hey, we only have one district.  So what do we get out of this?"  On the one hand, nothing, and who cares (see previous post).  On the other hand, it might make our national politics better, and that is a benefit for us. 

McCain For President

David Brooks writes a powerful column (free subscription required) on the character of John McCain.  Here's just the intro:

About six months ago, I was having lunch with a political consultant and we were having a smart-alecky conversation about the presidential race. All of sudden, my friend interrupted the flow of gossip and said: “You know, there’s really only one great man running for president this year, and that’s McCain.”

The comment cut through the way we pundits normally talk about presidential candidates. We tend to view them like products and base our verdicts on their market share at the moment. We don’t so much evaluate their character; we analyze how effectively they are manipulating their image to appeal to voters, and in this way we buy into the artificiality of modern campaigning.

Read the whole thing for more on McCain's character.  One illness our democracy has is, as Brooks indicates, the equation of politics with a game.  In this game, politics is simply my team versus your team, and we keep score through public opinion polls and election results. We do not work for the public good, but to win a game.  What else do we mean by "going Washington" than someone who has bought into the power game?  This includes the irrational hatred of our opponents (much like my irrational hatred of the Green Bay Packers, for no other reason than they are not the Minnesota Vikings, and yes, I did see Sunday's game).

Brooks notes how those involved in the game, whether as participants or reporters, are incestuously linked and have a difficult distancing themselves from the game.  Thus our coverage of politics is mostly about who is winning the game, not about character or policy.  As someone noted recently (can't remember who or where), it says something about the Valarie Plame case that central figures are a Time magazine reporter (Matt Cooper) married to a Clinton operative (Mandy Grunwald), and a CIA official (Valarie Plame) married to a Democratic operative (Joe Wilson).  You have people like Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos, Chris Matthews, Pete Williams and Tony Snow who have moved seamlessly between political work and news work. It's all part of the game.

One thing one can say about McCain is that he is as divorced from the game as one can get as a US Senator.  He seems not to have been totally seduced.  McCain is willing to say things that we don't want to hear.  Brooks points out that McCain gave full support to the Iraq war and was advocating the surge when the war was at its least popular.  McCain has questioned ethanol subsidies even when it will cost him votes in Iowa.  I have my share of differences with Sen. McCain, mostly over the regulation of political speech (I am against it), but I cannot deny he is a man with a sense of honor.  I once had a conversation with him about this issue when he and Russ Feingold were in Chicago stumping for their bill.  McCain strangely admitted that his bill would not solve the "problem" of money in politics.  And his solution to that was to suggest that we'd someday have to pass even more regulations.  This proves that the adage "hope dies last" is still relevant.  Still, he was affable and friendly to me after I had challenged him strongly.

McCain may not advocate all the policies I'd have him advocate, but I do think he is a man of honor, and the country needs that.  He has the capacity to call people to something higher than self-interest.  Aristotle tells us that deficient government is a government where the rulers (one, few or many) rule for their own interests rather than for the public good.  Thus a government based on rule by the people can be as tyrannical as government by one man.   McCain has the ability to call people beyond themselves and to be real citizens, not just passive or self-interested subjects.  McCain is willing to tell the people "no," something a democratic citizenry needs from time to time. 

A few weeks ago I wrote, "But throughout the coming campaign, let's look at who appeals to the best in us, mollifying rather than antagonizing our worst instincts. That, more than what position candidates take on this or that issue, will indicate each one's capacity for high office."  John McCain is that man.  McCain for President!

Do-Nothing Congress

Check out arch-Democrat E.J. Dione's piece on the Democratic Congress.

Democrats in Congress are discovering what it's like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush, and for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.  Democrats complain that this is unfair and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?

Not me!  And then there is this by VandeHei and Harris at the Politico:

As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.  The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge, perhaps even to themselves.

Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.  Only one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats. That one was vetoed by Bush.

Indeed, the only war legislation enacted during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.

Why are the Democrats being boxed in by this lame duck President?  You will learn that in my next piece in the Aberdeen American News. 

 

SDP Jazz Note: Contemporary Jazz in a Local Venue

I was in Sioux Falls this weekend, and noticed some promising jazz and blues acts coming to that venue, courtesy of the Sioux Falls Jazz and Blues Society.  Chris Thomas King will be at the Orpheum Theater this friday.  King played the Robert Johnson character in Oh Brother, Where Art Thou.  Better yet, Joe Lovano, a master tenor and soprano sax player, brings his quartet to the Orpheum on the 25th of January.  I plan to be there. 

Meanwhile check out In the Groove: Jazz and Beyond.  My friend Ken Laster hosts the contemporary jazz band Reincarnation.  It's lovely music.  Trust Laster. 

National Journal on Ideological Discrimination

The National Journal's Stuart Taylor published an article entitled "Academia's Pervasive PC Rot," discussing the University of Delaware's "diversity facilitation training."  His piece contained this nugget:  "They [the university] are also ruthless in blocking appointment of professors whose views they don't like; are eager to censor such views; and in many cases are determined to push their own political views on students, who have few reality checks in their course material and are often too innocent of the world to understand when they are being fed fatuous tripe."  Note that this was not published in the National Review, but the National Journal, an organ of bland establishment news in Washington.  Be sure to read the whole thing.

Daschle Center in NYT

The Daschle Center makes the New York Times.

Larry Long On The Mend

I don't think we've mentioned that Attorney General Larry Long was hospitalized last week with an ulcer problem.  He seems to be doing well:

Attorney General Larry Long is now resting at home after being hospitalized last week with a bleeding ulcer.

Long, 60, was hospitalized Thursday in Mitchell after becoming lightheaded while attending a meeting. His spokesperson, Sara Rabern, says Long was released from the hospital during the weekend and returned home to Pierre.

Rabern says it is likely that Long will rest at home for a while before returning to work.

Bush Vetos Bill Including Daschle Earmark

Argus Leader excerpt:

President Bush on Tuesday vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats.

The measure Bush vetoed included a $1 million earmark for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy at South Dakota State University.

That earmark was among about 2,200 in the bill. The total bill included about $151 billion in discretionary spending – more than $1 billion of that in earmarks.

Earmarks are spending items requested by individual lawmakers for special projects in their districts. The money is often funneled to museums, universities and other local programs, and they’ve been identified by budget watchdogs as a source of Washington’s spendthrift ways.

The Daschle earmark was one of several in the bill that were added in a conference committee, where lawmakers sorted out differences between the bills passed by the U.S. House and Senate. Because it was added in a conference committee, the earmark was never voted on in the normal appropriations process in either the House or Senate.

Democrats who took control of Congress last year vowed to reform the earmark process, including eliminating earmarks added in conference committees.

Blue Jeans In Church

Jerry Krueger has a piece in the American News that warms the heart:

Whatever happened to respect and civility toward our fellow man by dressing according to the good manners expected for the occasion?

The wearing of baseball caps in public places is OK sometimes, but not all the time. An example: Take them off in sit-down restaurants.

Another example: Wearing blue jeans for solemn occasions seems to smack of a very subtle way of showing disrespect and a ho-hum attitude.

Asking people to show some manner of respect and honor is not asking too much when it comes to church, Mass and public gatherings of solemn moments.

While there might be no written dress code for those ushering in church, carrying up the gifts, offering the sacraments or being in front of an audience, shouldn't people dress up a little bit for such a reverent moment? Those occasions call for respect and honor. Doing those tasks wearing blue jeans or shabby clothing is just plain inappropriate.
(snip)
Now there are those who will argue that it is a free country and you can wear whatever you want. That's true. No one will make you wear any particular garment or footwear, however, sloppy or inappropriate clothing sends the message of lack of respect; whether that message is intentional or not.

While it might seem like a small thing, attire and appearance scream volumes to those around you. Perhaps a bit of introspection is warranted - give some thought to the message you are sending.

How you dress says something about how seriously you take a situation.  It doesn't say everything, but it does say something.  I like to point out to students that in the 1930s and 1940s college men wore a coat and tie to class.  That was a sign that study was a serious matter.  Joe Dimaggio refused to be seen in public without a coat and tie, even at a baseball game.  To appear otherwise would be undignified for a gentleman.  These may be exaggerated examples, but it does go to show how far we've come (or retreated).  Regarding church, it is true that what we wear says nothing about God, but it might say something about us.  What does it say about my attitude toward God and worship when I dress no differently for it than if I were mowing my lawn?

I shall attempt to be humble.  He who is without sin.... Perhaps Joseph Epstein is correct: The casualness of dress in all occasions is a sign of a culture caught in perpetual adolescence. 

Email Dump

Getting to a couple reader emails, let's first look at Gary C., who writes in response to this post about Lincoln, Bush and dictatorship:

You forgot all about Lincoln splitting Virginia into two states! Talk about your questionable constitutionality. I've always been fascinated with the history behind this and there appears to be quite a lively debate ongoing today on the Internet.

Gary is correct about the dubious constitutionality of the admittance of West Virginia.  It is unconstitutional to create a new state out of an existing state without the existing state's permission.  Congress essentially recognized a rump parliament of Virginia as the legitimate legislature, and when it approved the splitting off of West Virginia, we got a new state.  I will point out that this was done with the cooperation of Lincoln and Congress, thus does not go to the heart of the "Lincoln as dictator" question. 

Reader Josh, who is a student at a South Dakota university, emails in response to yet another post by me railing against laptops in the classroom.  I have edited out minor parts of Josh's email for brevity and to protect his identity. 

While [laptops] do afford the opportunity for distraction, they also offer the ability to organize information much more effectively than a standard notebook. I am able to refer back to previous lectures much easier than with a paper notebook, and I am able to supplement a lecture with a quick Google search if I want clarification on something or to expand upon what a professor is saying. This is not to say that I do not ask for clarification when it is appropriate, but I am often interested in particular aspect of something that is mentioned and disrupting a lecture probably isn’t the best approach.

(snip)

As far as turning students into stenographers, I feel that this is something the professor does with his or her lecture style. Some profs use a style that does this to students no matter what method they use to take notes. A constant barrage of facts, or a long winded monologue, compels me to furiously type away as much as it causes a student with pen and paper to write as quickly as possible. The difference would be that I might actually capture more of what is said. Getting students to internalize information from a lecture at the time it is given is much more dependent upon the professors lecturing style than it is on the students note taking method.

(snip)

I believe in personal responsibility. I feel like this is college, and as student we should be responsible for our own behavior. It should be our choice to make if we want to pay for a class and then spend the hour surfing the web, just like we should be able to pay for a class and then not attend.

One final point before I end my ranting is that using a laptop to waste time in class is no worse than the multitude of students I constantly see using cell phones to text message or play games in class. At least laptops can be used as an educational aid if that is the intent of the student, as far as I can tell nothing can be gained from cell phones which are commonplace.

On the last point about cell phones in class, Josh and I are in total agreement.  I wish to point out that I have allowed students to use laptops on an individual basis, but the question here is whether the entire class uses laptops as a central part of learning. 

Daschle's Earmark

My only suggestion is that if the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy is ever built, that it be designed to look like Daschle's house in Virginia. 

Novak on Daschle Earmark

Bob Novak discusses the Daschle Center in an article entitled "A Failed Congressional Ploy."  Excerpt:

The conference report's "compromise" Labor-HHS bill at $151 billion was actually more expensive than either the House or Senate version. It contains a $1 million earmark for a Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy at South Dakota State University to honor the former Senate majority leader who was defeated for re-election in 2004. Sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Robert Byrd and Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Daschle Center was one of nine earmarks "airdropped" into the final version by the Senate-House conference without being passed by either the Senate or House. Silently removed from the bill by the conference report was the prohibition, passed by the Senate in a rare defeat for earmarkers, against spending $1 million for the Woodstock "hippies" museum in Bethel, N.Y.

In the past, if a point of order against an appropriations bill was affirmed, the whole bill would die. But a new rule pressed by Democrats this year made it possible to split veterans spending away from Labor-HHS without killing the bill. All 46 Republican senators present voted to sustain the point of order, so that the Senate fell 13 votes short of the 60 votes needed to keep the two bills together.

Consequently, the Senate last Tuesday again had to pass the bloated Labor-HHS bill. It did, but by a 56 to 37 margin, short of a veto-proof majority, as 19 Republican senators changed their affirmative vote from the last time they considered this bill. In an extraordinary outburst against the 19 switchers, Majority Leader Reid called them "sheep and chickens" who had "chosen to defend a failed president." In truth, he had just lost an audacious ploy.

Also, here is David Newquist on the Daschle Center earmark:  "The Congressional earmark of $1 million for the Tom Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy at SDSU has some media and many blogs breathing heavily and noisily and making indignant gasping sounds. To them, bringing up the Daschle Center is like opening a centerfold from Penthouse and holding a circle jerk. It provides the anti-intellectual, anti-real-education factions an occasion to get off on something."

UPDATE:  SDWC comments on the Novak piece.  Also see this thoughtful post.

UPDATE II:  Even the Argus Leader editorial today is slamming the Daschle earmark.

Over the hills and o'er the main

Over the hills and o'er the main.
To Flanders, Portugal, and Spain,
Queen Anne commands and we'll obey.
Over the hills and far away.

My father has a painting of a ship.  It has hung on one wall or another of our family home since I was a child.  I was once disappointed to learn that it was not a battleship or a destroyer, though it did have some awesome looking guns.  They were strictly for the defense of the ship.  Later, I learned to appreciate the ship on which my father served in the Second World War.  Its function was to repair landing craft.  It was part of the immense auxiliary fleet without which all the warships and marines would be helpless.  My father's ship was built and manned to be part of a second D-Day, landing American forces on the shores of Japan.  I am happy to report that that invasion turned out to be unnecessary. 

My father was one of a generation of heroes.  They served no King nor any Queen but a Republic, of which they were themselves the heart, soul, and will.  They brought down two of the most terrible empires to ever menace free peoples.  My Uncle Bill landed on Okinawa and was killed by a Japanese sniper.  We who were born in the kinder and gentler half of the last century have much to be grateful for. 

I remember that my younger brother and I tore open an old box in our storage room and found the uniforms that Dad and his brothers wore at sea.   Aunt Barbara went to work of them and produced smaller versions that fit me, my brother, and a cousin my brother's age.  What a hoot!  Kenny and Dave looking o'er the main!  But she couldn't do anything about the shoes.  Little boy's feet just wouldn't fit in them.  Looking back, I still have to wonder whether this generation can fill those shoes.