South Dakota Politics

Scrooge and Virtue

Following Todd Epp's leadership, I am reprinting some Christmas posts of previous seasons.  Here is one I wrote on A Christmas Carol. 

My colleague Professor Schaff weighs in on that basic problem of modern political philosophy and economics: was Scrooge A (pre-Christmas spirit Scrooge) a man of modern virtue?  Modern virtue is here defined in the Machiavellian sense of effective virtue, that is, a set of habits that is efficiently productive.  The answer, within the confines of that definition, is obviously yes.  This is largely the conclusion of Stephen Lansburg's defense of Scrooge A in Slate. Scrooge A was about as efficiently productive as it is possible for a human being to be, as least when it comes to cold, hard, cash. 

Dickens's Christmas Carol is one of the most powerful short stories ever composed.   This is due in large part to his sublimation of Christianity.  The story is, to be sure, full of ghosts; but, apart from the word Christmas itself, I think there is not the slightest mention of the Holy Ghost.  Dickens writes as if he were trying to smuggle the Gospel onto the courthouse grounds under the watchful eyes of our contemporary Supreme Court.  This has the paradoxical effect of making the Christian message of redemption all the more compelling. 

A second aspect of its perfection lies in the marvelous splitting of time into past, present, and future spirits.  All three ghosts are, of course, one and the same ghost: Christmas itself, a religious festival incarnate (or almost incarnate, the ghosts remaining a bit vaporous if no less visible and powerful for that).    But Christmas appears differently from the three temporal points of view, thus grounding itself in the most basic existential fact of human life.  The past and present are history.  Only the future may be redeemed. 

Last, but not least, Dickens shows the fatal flaw in modern virtue without rejecting modern virtue.  Anyone can see that there is something desperately wrong with the way that Scrooge A lives.  Sipping warmed up broth in his cold chambers, without the comforts of love, friends, or family, what is the point of being rich?  On the other hand, it is precisely the efficiency of Scrooge A that makes his transformation so wonderful.  After all, Scrooge B can afford to send the Cratchits a gargantuan turkey.  He can afford to redeem his sister's love by changing his nephew Fred's circumstances.  And he can afford to save poor Tim.  It is worth mentioning that he can also afford to make his place of business and his home a good deal more comfortable.

I have heard it said that Dickens more or less revived and profoundly shaped our later celebration of Christmas.  It is certainly part of an interesting shift in the Christian calendar.  The most important Christian festival ought to be Easter, for Christ's resurrection constitutes the essential promise of the Gospel: as Christ walked out of the tomb, those who believe in Him may do likewise.  But Christmas has overshadowed Easter, even among the most pious Christians in the modern world.  Because of Scrooge A-like modern virtue, we can afford to be very generous when a Scrooge B-like mood hits us.  And say what you want about the evils of capitalism, it has done more to warm the hearths of the poor than dropping alms into collection plates ever did.   The Tiny Tims of the developed world have been saved by the power and prosperity of modern civilization.  But A Christmas Carol is not about their salvation.  It is about Scrooge's salvation. 

I have seen a lot of versions of A Christmas Carol, and I like many of them.  My favorite is the version starring Patrick Stewart.  No one has presented the contrast between the redeemed and unredeemed Scrooge so well.  When he finds himself alive on Christmas morning, he suddenly seems to strangle and cough.  He is trying to laugh, for the first time in so long that he has to remember how to do it.  It also adds a scene in which Scrooge attends a Christmas morning church service.  He is so unaccustomed to the venue that he has to be reminded twice to take off his top hat.  As he squeezes into a pew, he tries to sing but doesn't know the words.  The man next to him kindly shares his hymnal.  When he shows up, very unexpected, at Fred's for Christmas dinner, he knows that the person who has to accept him is not Fred but Fred's wife.  He says to her: "can you forgive a stupid old man who doesn't want to be left out in the cold any more."  I tear up just typing those words. 

All this reminds us that modern virtue, for all its power, would be a very poor thing without Christian virtue.  Merry Christmas. 

Boston Herald Endorses McCain

The Boston Herald editorial staff has a fine endorsement of John McCain today in a piece entitled "Choice is clear: McCain's the one."  Excerpt:

There are times in this nation’s history so perilous that they cry out for a steady, experienced leader, a person so trusted that we would put the fate of this country in his hands.

This is one of those times, and Sen. John McCain is that person.

He has a brand of courage that is rare in the public arena these days - a courage forged in part by those years spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam and in part by more than two decades of fighting for what he believes in on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

In an age when too many candidates are driven by polls and focus groups, fashioning and re-fashioning their “core” beliefs, McCain is a man of unwavering conviction and integrity. His values, his beliefs, his goals are what they were when he first entered public life, what they were in 2000 and what they will be a decade from now.

And those goals include a safe and secure America, a country that is respected around the world for honoring its commitments, for encouraging and respecting the rule of law whether in Baghdad or Guantanamo Bay.

Be sure to read the whole thing.  I remain undecided about who I support, but I would urge Republicans not to give up on McCain.

Decline Of The NFL Quarterback

Bill Simmons argues what I have long maintained, that the quality of quarterbacking in the NFL has suffered greatly in recent years.  Simmons places all sixty (yes, sixty) quarterbacks who have started a game this year in various categories of declining competence from the "franchise players" (Peyton Manning and Tom Brady) to the "Proverbial F Minus" (David Carr).  For Vikings fans, Tavaris Jackson is in the "Flashes of Upside, Floods of Downside" category. 

Liberal Education And South Dakota Universities

On the subject of the Board of Regents' budget and discussion about the future of higher ed in our state I think it best for us who are employees of the university system to keep a judicious silence.  When the Board, the governor or a legislator asks my opinion, I will give it, but not a moment sooner.  But I do want to correct one minor factual matter from Pat Powers' post on the subject.  Strictly speaking, South Dakota does not have a liberal arts college or university.  The focus of all our schools is to prepare people for the workforce.  While there are majors at our schools that are typically part of the liberal arts, the general education package is not justified on the grounds of liberal education and the pervasive atmosphere of all six Regent schools is one of professional rather than liberal education. 

How To Pick Your Republican Candidate: A Matrix

Bob Krumm provides a very simply matrix with which you can judge which Republican candidate to support for president.  He only includes the top five candidates, but you may include others as you like.  Krumm likes Thompson, based on the following estimations:

SDP Jazz Note: Preservation Hall Jazz Band

It's probably too late to get Santa or Brown to deliver it for Christmas, but there is a new recording of Preservation Hall Jazz Band music out there.  NPR has a nice feature about the box set, as well as a couple of samples you can listen to online.  Michele Norris interviews Ben Jaffe, who

grew up in Preservation Hall. His father Allan founded it in 1961 as a way to keep New Orleans' signature sound alive.

The tapes that make up the new collection have a special claim to represent the survival of New Orleans jazz. 

"One of the experiences that I had was going back to the old recording studio my dad used to record at, [Sea-Saint], Allen Toussaint's recording studio in the Gentilly area, which was one of the hardest-hit areas in New Orleans."

Jaffe feared venturing into Sea-Saint because he thought he wouldn't be able to find the treasure trove of master tapes. The studio had been badly damaged by the waters, and hundreds of recordings by The Meters, Fats Domino, The Neville Brothers and more were all under water.

"I felt like I was in a church that had been destroyed," Jaffe says. "I mean, this was my church, these were the bands that I grew up listening to, and they gave me all the joy of my life. To see something that was so precious gone forever — I haven't been able to process it."

Miraculously, all the Preservation Hall tapes had been stored above the top shelf, just three inches above the water line, and all survived.

About a year ago, Professor Schaff and I were fortunate enough to spend a couple hours in Preservation Hall.  It is about as unique a venue as you will ever find: a primitive room with long wooden benches, few lights, and no running water.  Well, except for during hurricanes.  The audience practically sits in the band's lap.   The tickets were very affordable, but if you find yourself in the Quarter and want to hear the real thing, get there early.  There are almost always more folks in line than there are seats. 

Iraquagmire

Thanks to Don Surber for the title:

2007 was the year the wheels spun until they came off the Democratic bandwagon.  Why?  Iraq.  Time after time after time, Democrats voted on Iraq. They thought this would punish Republicans by tarring them with an unpopular war.  Instead, it tarred them. The public stopped caring about Iraq a long time ago. We went in for WMD, found none and wound up with an unhappy mess.  Winning the war 4 years later does not redeem the Republican Party.  But arguing about it constantly while doing nothing else (except endless trolling for scandals) cost the Democratic Party its all.

...

Pelosi and Reid cannot do the simple math. They don’t have the votes. The Democratic lead in the House is too small and Democrats do not have the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to force their will.  Instead of compromising, Democrats have tried to force their will upon Congress and failed 40 times, at least. Some estimates are 63 times.

Energy And Farm Bills Impact South Dakota

President Bush recently signed into law a new energy bill.  Take a look at this summary of the major components of the bill  You'll notice that tax provisions impacting the oil industry and mandates on renewable energy for private energy companies were removed from the bill.  The entire South Dakota delegation is happy with the bill.

South Dakota's congressional delegation is hailing the energy bill signed by President Bush, saying its required wider use of ethanol will help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who attended the bill signing ceremony at the Energy Department on Wednesday morning, said the U.S. has been heavily addicted to oil imported from sheiks and dictators around the world for decades.

"Today, in passing and signing into law a historic energy bill, our country took a big step toward breaking this addiction and instead relying on South Dakota and Midwestern farmers," Thune said Wednesday during a conference call.

Patrick Deneen has further comments.  In his view this law sets into place a policy by which American food and energy concerns will no be in competition with each other. 

The argument criticizing higher taxes as protection for the consumer is so laughable it makes one want to cry. People will be paying more for their energy, but because of the mandates for biofuel production, it will pinch at the supermarket and not most obviously at the pump. Bush won't get blamed for higher energy prices - people will likely fail to make the connection between the provisions of this bill and the rising cost of basic foodstuff. As this New York Times article of two days ago describes, "the nation [is] about to commit itself to decades of competition between food and fuel for the use of agricultural land."

I offer a friendly dissent.  I'd rather have markets set price.  If there is a shortage of oil, and there may be, then the best way to change people's behavior in the ways Dr. Pat would like is to let the market adjust the price.  I'd prefer low taxes on energy low while also not distorting markets through subsidization of biofuels.

But Dr. Pat gives notice that energy policy and food policy are now intertwined.  So we must also look at the new farm bill.  The Rapid City Journal praises Sen. Thune's efforts on the newly forged agreement. 

At least part of the credit for that forward progress on an important piece of legislation that will govern America’s agricultural, food and nutrition policies for the next five years goes to Sen. John Thune.

After months of partisan wrangling over a stalled farm bill, senators late last week passed, 79-14, a $288 billion bill that maintains much of the status quo of the last farm bill, but at least gives South Dakota farmers and ranchers the benefit of knowing what federal programs they might expect for the 2008 production year.

Thune helped forge an agreement to limit amendments to 20 on each side of the aisle, and he managed the floor debate on the bill for the Republicans.

The bill must now go to conference committee.  As it stands right now, it is mostly a retread of old agreements.  Of interest to South Dakota's hunters, there are strong conservation provisions in the bill.  See this press release from Ducks Unlimited.  For the hunting sector of our economy this is important as other provisions give farmers incentive to shift land from conservation to production.  Hopefully these conservation proposals stay in the final version of the bill and make it into law. 

McCain Moves Forward in the Polls

A new Fox National poll shows McCain surging forward to third, surpassing Romney, Thompson, and Paul but finishing behind Giuliani and Huckabee.  The RealClearPolitics average nearly parallels the Fox poll, with Giuliani out front, followed by Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Thompson, and Paul.

UPDATE:  Tom Tancredo has officially dropped out of the race and endorsed Romney.

Treaties Withdrawn by Lakota

This is an interesting story that will be important to South Dakota:  Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago.

The Endless Campaign

We at SDP often discuss the issue of frontloading the primaries.  Karl Rove takes on the issue in the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page about this year's primary calendar and concludes that it's "frankly, a mess."  The piece is entitled "The Endless Campaign: Why we need longer primaries -- but a shorter process."  Excerpt:

If primaries and caucuses were spread out with weeks, not days and hours, between them, then voters in more states could learn more about the candidates. Candidates would have more time to come back from an early loss to a contender who was briefly the flavor of the moment in one state.

Candidates would also benefit from having more time to think about the big, important things they want to do for the country. The process side of politics is now undermining the intellectual side. It was revealing that at a health-care forum last March, Sen. Barack Obama admitted he didn't have a health-care plan but promised to have one by this January.

...

A longer primary process would give more Americans a chance to make a considered decision about who should be president. The process could still honor the role of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, but give other states the opportunity to more fully participate in the selection of our nominees.

…

One answer might be to create a series of days on which states across the country could hold their primaries or caucuses. These contest days would be spread out over the winter and spring. Each day would have a mix of states, representing different regions of the country.

Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) have introduced legislation along these lines. There are also proposals from the state secretaries of state and groups of leaders in both parties. Perhaps a reform structure could be arrived at by the two major parties and their rules, without requiring congressional action.

Longer, earlier and shorter--at least when it comes to selecting our presidential candidates--is not in the country's best interests. The presidential primary mayhem and next year's seemingly endless general election campaign will be compelling evidence for reform.

Headlines Worth Noting

Bush strategy forces Al Qaeda to conduct operations in space!

Jet From Supermassive Black Hole Seen Blasting Neighboring Galaxy

Prepare yourself for a shock.

Israel's Policies Alienate Arabs

Zombie voters are denied yet again.

Survivor Is Poised to Lead South Africa

And God said: "The Answer to Number Five is B."

More college students seeking spiritual answers

He's got at least two hundred pounds on him! 

Master of ‘Rings’ to Tackle ‘Hobbit’

As anyone knows who drinks enough of the stuff.

Tea exit plans gain momentum

Al Qaeda defeated in Iraq/ Dems defeated in Congress

Chris Lehman, writing in the National Observer, may have written the epitaph of the110th Congress.

Gullible voters keen to treat the onset of the 2008 primary season as a hale sign of life in the American democratic system had best avert their gaze from Capitol Hill this week. For as Congress winds down the year’s business with earmark-laden appropriations bills and unsightly cave-ins to Bush prerogative after Bush prerogative, the governing metaphor is not the campaign scene’s notorious horse race—something that, for all its by-the-numbers familiarity, at least connotes forward motion. The most fitting template for Congress, rather, is the La Brea Tar Pits—a place where doomed life-forms absently topple into the sticky abyss, with only their outward frames preserved for puzzled generations centuries down the line.

When the party you prefer fails to enact all your preferences, it is always tempting to see it as a failure of democracy.  However, while there is something a bit swamp-like in the plight of Speaker Pelosi's majority, George W. seems to skate over it like it was smooth ice and he were Brian Boitano.  He has just gotten nearly everything he wanted from Congress, including full war funding with no strings attached.  Not bad for an inarticulate, regressive, alpha male. The Washington Post forgoes the tar pit metaphor for that of a wounded warriors.

The first Democratic-led Congress in a dozen years limped out of Washington last night with a lengthy list of accomplishments... But Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.

I think that the word "even" above should read "especially." 

Partisan Democrats are disgusted with the failure of Congress to reign in the President and put an end to the war in Iraq.  That is supposedly what the people were voting for when they ousted the regressives.  But this ignores two important things.  One is that the United States is not, strictly speaking, a democracy.  It is a Republic, in which popular will is translated into policy by means of a system of institutions.  The other is that policy being made now has to be tailored to present conditions, not those that were present during the last election. 

For better or worse, Bush is still Commander-in-Chief, and that carries weight.  Moreover, the Republicans control almost half of both Houses of Congress.  Those are both examples of the Republic thing.  But most important of all, Republican party losses in 2006 finally forced the Bush Administration to change its military policy, and that new policy, under General Petraeus, so far appears spectacularly successful.  I suppose this is official, now that the MSM has finally stopped blasting Bush for sticking to a failed policy and started blasting him (rightly) for not switching to the new and successful policy sooner.  USAToday has the story of the change in strategy in rich detail.

A USA TODAY investigation shows that the strategy now used to defeat the bombmaking networks and stabilize Iraq was ignored or rejected for years by key decision-makers. As early as 2004, when roadside bombs already were killing scores of troops, a top military consultant invited to address two dozen generals offered a "strategic alternative" for beating the insurgency and IEDs.

Republican control of Congress, not to mention thousands of lives, might have been saved if the Administration had made this decision earlier.  This is a real blight on the Administration's record.  But the Democrats are unlikely to exploit it effectively.  They are too severely addicted to the rhetoric of defeat.  And so Bush is defeating them on the floors of Congress.  Most Americans think that the war was a mistake, but given a choice between winning or losing, they would prefer the former.  The recent successes in Iraq are the ice on which Bush is now skating. 

And Time's Person of the Year Is...

Time Magazine announced its Person of the Year, declaring Al Gore Vladimir Putin worthy of the title this year.  It's a shame, but not entirely surprising.  It's not the first time the magazine has chosen a dictator.  What about the man who has helped turn the situation in Iraq around?  Yeah, he finished fourth, behind Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, and Hu Jintao. As  Peter Wehner comments: “We have seen czars before, and we have seen autocrats turn their nation toward oppression before. What none of us have seen before is a counterinsurgency plan that has made this much progress in this compressed a period of time.”  No, clearly the man who has imprisoned political and media opponents, is possibly linked to several suspicious murders, and wants "stability before freedom, stability before choice," (in Time's words) is more deserving.  What a disgrace.

Churchill And The Study Of History

Here is a passage from the first volume of Winston Churchill's History of The English Speaking Peoples.  This passage concludes Churchill's discussion of the conflict between church and crown in the reign of Henry II.  Although Henry II's reign included the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, Churchill draws our attention to the manner of resolution of these squabbles.  He writes:

It is proof of the quality of the age that these fierce contentions, shaking the souls of men, should have been so rigorously and yet so evenly fought out.  In modern conflicts and revolutions in some great states bishops and archbishops have been sent by droves to concentration camps, or pistolled in the nape of the neck in the well-warmed, brilliantly lighted corridor of a prison.  What claim have we to vaunt a superior civilisation to Henry II's times?  We are sunk in a barbarism all the deeper because it is tolerated by moral lethargy and covered with a veneer of scientific conveniences.

The footnote at this point in the text indicates that Churchill wrote this passage in 1938.

There are many lessons to be drawn from this passage.  Let's discuss just one.  It has to do with the study of history.  It is often stated that the reason to study history is, in the words of George Santayana, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  There is much truth here.  But the study of history serves another purpose.  An historical understanding is one which allows for perspective, to compare our place and time to other places and times.  This perspective should militate against the impatience of ideology.  Knowing how our times compare to others should engender in us a modesty suggested in Churchill's passage.  History allows us to see the limits of human endeavors, thus moderating the demands we make in the here and now.  If we are ignorant of history all we know is the now, and we come to expect everything now.  This demand for perfection leads to inevitable disappointment and perhaps anger, an anger that can be exploited by ambitious leaders.  But someone steeped in historical understanding expects less from politics and thus is less likely to be angered by expectations not met.  He is less susceptible to the false promises of ambitious politicians.  This is one reason among many why a study of history is important to a free people. 

Presidential Fundraising

Don't miss Jeanne Cummings's insightful article over at the Politico entitled "Fundraising is the name of the game."

The Pope Encounters The World

This is a fine NYT piece (subscription may be required) anticipating Benedict XVI's arrival at the United Nations next year.   This even handed treatment praises Benedict's message while chiding him for his political tin ear when it comes to articulating his ideas. 

Part of the problem is that so far, this cerebral pope has a track record of blurring such compelling arguments during his biggest turns on stage. When he visited Auschwitz in May 2006, for example, he offended some Jews by asserting that the Nazis tried to destroy Christianity too. Four months later, he set off a firestorm among Muslims with a lecture at the University of Regensburg by quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor to the effect that Muhammad brought “things only evil and inhuman,” such as “his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” And in Brazil last May, the pope incensed indigenous people in Latin America by suggesting that Christianity was not imposed on them.

In each case, Benedict was actually trying to make a deeper point worth hearing. In Auschwitz, his contention was that objective truth grounded in God is the only bulwark against the blind will to power; his Regensburg address was devoted to reason and faith, arguing that reason shorn of faith becomes nihilism, while faith without reason ends in fanaticism and violence; and in Brazil, he argued that since Christ embraces all humanity, he cannot be foreign to anyone’s spiritual experience.

Those ideas, however, were overshadowed by a few throwaway phrases that betray a worrying insensitivity to how unfamiliar audiences are likely to hear what he says.

Perhaps a world not in constance search for offense and that sweet music of victimhood would be more generous towards the Pontiff's rhetoric, but one must take the world as it is rather than how one wishes it to be.  There is a sound lesson in this.  Rhetoric, like music or art, is as much form as it is content.  How we say things is almost as important as what we say. 

For more on Benedict XVI and lots of other topics, see this discussion with Fr. James Shall, Georgetown University political philosopher.   HT to Joe K.

Floyd Red Crow Westerman

Washington Post excerpt:

Floyd Red Crow Westerman, an American Indian activist, actor and folk singer who appeared in "Dances With Wolves" and performed with Willie Nelson and other musicians, died Dec. 13 at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles from complications of leukemia. He was 71.

Mr. Westerman appeared in dozens of movies and television shows, including in recurring roles as Uncle Ray Firewalker on "Walker, Texas Ranger" and George Littlefox on "Dharma and Greg."

His most memorable movie role was in Kevin Costner's 1990 Oscar-winning Western epic, "Dances With Wolves." He played the Sioux leader Ten Bears, who befriends Costner's character.

A respected musician, Westerman worked with Nelson, Bonnie Raitt, Harry Belafonte, Jackson Browne and others. His debut album, released in 1970, was titled "Custer Died for Your Sins." Last year he released "A Tribute to Johnny Cash" to positive reviews.

Mr. Westerman completed work in September on the upcoming Costner film "Swing Vote."

He was an activist for environmental causes and for the rights of American Indians and other indigenous people. In the 1990s, he toured the world with Sting to raise money to preserve rain forests.

A Brokered Convention?

Dr. Blanchard touches on the subject of a brokered convention below and our friend Ed Morrissey wonders if the GOP is facing the possibility of a brokered convention to overcome unity problems. It seems clear that Republicans haven’t thrown their support behind any single candidate in a meaningful way. The New York Times reported last week that the current GOP candidates are not exciting primary voters. Morrissey cites a recent McClatchy article exploring Rudy Giuliani’s slide in the polls and a Gallup poll signaling that Mike Huckabee’s surge has reached its apex. Meanwhile, John McCain gathers support in New Hampshire and Mitt Romney is (in Ed’s words) “treading water.” David Freddoso made the same argument this week in National Review.

Here are my off-the-cuff observations. I’m not so certain that a brokered convention – the selection of a nominee determined at the convention rather than beforehand in state primaries and caucuses – is necessarily inevitable within the GOP camp. It seems that every election year the topic of brokered conventions come up, but one hasn’t happened in the last fifty-five years. The last time the GOP had a brokered convention was 1948 and for the Democrats it was 1952.  Each party lost their bid in those years.

We should also be careful that we’re not focusing too narrowly on the primaries. For instance, Mitt Romney might not appeal well to Republican primary voters, but nationally he’s viewed as a moderate – an important consideration for the general election. He may not carry voters who leave Giuliani’s camp, but I suspect he can capture Huckabee supporters. I also happen to think Romney might have the best shot in raising support and getting the nomination. Huckabee’s Foreign Affairs article will do him in among national-security conservatives, McCain has trust issues, Thompson needs a big push to gain any traction, and Giuliani’s early lead is slowly fading. I would submit that by February the GOP will form a consensus around a candidate and the voters and pundits will unite behind that person. The best odds, it seems to me, lies with the moderates of the party – Romney, McCain, and Thompson, who sit between Giuliani’s social liberalism and Huckabee’s naïveté. Depending on how the primaries go, one of the middle ground candidates might drop out. Or a large ad campaign against Huckabee by the two well-funded candidates (Romney and Giuliani) might force him out of the race.  A lot can change in the next three months.

The political Big Picture for the GOP might also be disastrous if a brokered convention resulted. If one of the Democratic candidates captures the nomination on Super Tuesday (February 5), let’s say Barack Obama, that would allow him to start the campaign early, supported by a large war chest funded by unified supporters. The Republicans, on the other hand, would bicker until September, squandering the chance for unity behind the GOP nominee.

Then again, the contrarian in me says that a televised floor debate at the GOP convention might be a welcome divergence from the lethargic displays on television in recent years, and even have an energizing consequence by showing a functioning political institution. It would be a refreshing change for a political junkie like me.

A Very Unusual Election

The 2008 Presidential Election promises to be, well, it doesn't promise anything.  And that is one for the record books.  For the last half a century or so, one candidate in every presidential election has been either an incumbent running for reelection, or a sitting or former Vice President.  I think 1952 was the last exception, but I am going on memory.  When you have a P or a VP, the election becomes a referendum.  More of the same, or not.  I suppose if Senator Clinton is nominated, no sure thing at this point, the same choice might present itself.  But it doesn't feel like that. 

Tony Blankey argues that the GOP is headed toward a brokered convention.  He thinks that the GOP's constituent parts are working to prevent any candidate from unifying the party.  I think its way too early to draw that conclusion.  But it is hard to be confident that any candidate is the front runner, and that is unusual.  Blankey  thinks that this adds up to a Republican defeat, and I agree, provided that the Democrats achieve some unity on their side.  But that is by no means guaranteed.

Powerline points out that Senator Clinton, who by any traditional standard ought to be the Democratic nominee, is carrying more baggage than Marley's ghost. Commenting on a recent poll:

The eye-opener there is that 42% of independents, and even some Democrats, are dead set against Mrs. Clinton.

If that holds, it means that Candidate Clinton turns independents into Republicans.  It is that and only that that makes Obama, a sexy guy with nothing on his resume above the level of state legislature, a viable candidate. 

The truth is that both parties are in disarray.  A brokered convention (let alone two!) would be the greatest show on earth for a political scientist.  But one wonders if the parties are up to it.  If they are, this may be their finest hour. 

Liberty and Pharmacy

Our esteemed Keloland colleague, Todd Epp, seems to think that there is some kind of contradiction between opposing abortion and favoring the right of pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives on grounds of moral or religious belief. 

The Rapid City Journal reports today that Sen. John Thune is pro-choice when it comes to pill counting pharmacists having a right not to provide birth control pills to women so they can avoid an abortion...Yet Thune and his anti-choice ilk have no problem telling women that they can't choose to have an abortion--and now they can't even choose to take birth control if they have a jerk as a pharmacist.    

I think that this is an example of what lawyers mean when they speak of "proving too much."  Suppose Todd is right, and there is a contradiction between the two positions.  Would it not work equally well the opposite way?  If you are pro-choice on abortion, wouldn't you have to be in favor of choice for pharmacists? 

That it doesn't work the opposite way is evident from my pal Anna's post, at Dakota Women.  Anna, I gather, doesn't mind telling pharmacists that they have to fill prescriptions for birth control, but she is all
for choice on abortion.  Todd has managed to convict his own allies along with Thune and himself, perhaps.  It's hard to tell, given the ranting tone of his post.

In fact, neither side is guilty of any contradiction.  The pro-choice side believes that there is nothing wrong with abortion, and that it falls within the realm of personal liberty.  I disagree with that position, but it's surely coherent.  The pro-life side thinks that abortion is a severe form of child abuse, and there can be no legitimate freedom to abuse children.  The second question is how to protect freedom of conscience while maintaining codes of professional responsibility.  That is a matter requires an entirely different set of judgments. 

For example, see the passage that Anna quotes:

If your conscience forbids you to carry arms, don’t join the military or become a police officer. If you have qualms about animal experimentation, think hard before choosing to go into medical research. And, if you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology.

That is a strong argument, but again it proves too much.  Someone who cannot in good conscience sell tobacco or pornography should not accept a job where such trade takes place.  But can't the business decide not to carry such items?  Can't Target or K Mart decide not to stock cigarettes, or decide that it will sell only products that are friendly to the environment?  If a Catholic pharmacists can be compelled by law to dispense birth control pills, can a Catholic doctor be required to perform abortions?  To be sure, a PhD in biology shouldn't accept a research position that involves experiments on animals.  But suppose she thinks that the same results can be achieved without such experiments?  Should she not be allowed to raise capital for her own, animal-free research lab?  If so, I see no reason a pharmacist should not be allowed to make the same decisions if it's his drug store. 

Besides, compelling pharmacists "to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it" extends freedom to one set of customers while denying it to another.  I would not knowingly pay for services from a doctor who performs abortions. That is my choice.   I have no objection whatsoever to forms of birth control that do not involve abortion, but I respect the choices of people who do.  If a scrupulous person wishes to engage only physicians who do not dispense any form of birth control, shouldn't a similarly minded doctor be able to provide that standard of service?  I know for a fact that such doctors can be found.  Surely pharmacists and their customers should be allowed to make the same choices. 

   

The Floating Bridge

For the readers out there who play guitar, perhaps you'll share my frustration when I say that there's nothing more troublesome than the floating bridge.  For those who don't know, the bridge of a guitar is the anchoring point of the strings and can be divided by either "tremolo" or "hardtail."  Tremolo means the guitar player can push or pull on a tremolo bar to move the bridge like a lever, changing the tension on the strings and affecting the sound.  Hardtail refers to bridges that are securely attached to the body of the guitar and do not move.  As opposed to the fixed bridge, which allows the player the tremolo ability but only allows downward movement (like the Fender strat-style tremolo), a floating bridge gives players upward and downwards motion on the tremolo bar.

My seven-string Washburn 587V uses a Floyd Rose pivot bridge, which is fantastic for hammering out  divebombing and whammy combinations, but the problem is while tuning the guitar, you must find the equilibrium where the bridge "floats" even with the body of the guitar.  The strings pull the bridge upwards, while tension springs under the bridge pull it back.  Since it relies on equal tension, each time you adjust the tuning on one string, the other six change.  You end up having to tune the guitar around five times before it averages out.  And if you're tuning a floating bridge without an electric tuner, good luck.  For the trouble they cause, it would've been better for me to keep my Ibanez with its hardtail.  For anyone giving the gift of a guitar for Christmas, avoid the floating bridge.

A Reason Not To Support Ron Paul

He cites Sinclair Lewis as a political authority. 

Pepsi v. Coke

Todd has a post on John Thune's opposition to a bill intended to force pharmacists to sell contraceptives even if they have moral objections.  Todd sees this as hypocrisy.  Why is Thune for choice for pharmacists but opposed to choice for women regarding abortion?

This question makes sense if our only concern is about maximizing choice rather than concerning ourselves with what is being chosen. The pharmacist in question chooses not to sell a product which offends him morally.  The woman and the abortionist chose to end a life (whether is is a human life with rights is a matter of some dispute, but it is indisputably a life).  The question whether either of these choices is so grave as to demand a public response through the law. 

Let's use Pepsi and Coke to illustrate the point.  Some are Pepsi fans while others enjoy Coke.  Those of us who prefer Coke do not think ourselves morally superior to those who prefer Pepsi.  Nor do we attempt to use the law to punish those who are Pepsi drinkers.  Why?  Because the choice between Pepsi and Coke is literally a matter of taste.  It is a choice in which the public has no interest.  It is a matter of indifference.

John Thune, as a pro-life individual, does not think the choice whether to end life by means of abortion is a matter of public indifference.  This is not the time to argue whether Thune has correctly assessed the moral implications of abortion, but he seems to have sincerely decided that the life ended in abortion is a life with enough moral status for the public to grant it some significant protection.  Thus the public has the right to intrude upon this choice.  Whether a women chooses abortion or life is not the same as choosing Pepsi or Coke.  That's why the public might be interested in the former choice but not the latter. 

I take from the tone of Todd's post (he does not say so explicitly) that he thinks the ready availability of contraception is so important that pharmacists should be forced to sell contraceptives whether they want to or not.  The moral necessity of easy access to contraceptives is so great that the public has the right to intrude on the pharmacist's choice regarding what he will and won't sell.  Yet Todd apparently thinks that the abortion choice is a matter of sufficient indifference that to even suggest a public interest in protecting that unborn life makes one morally suspect and worthy of the kind of contempt he heaps upon Sen. Thune and Gov. Rounds. 

Both Todd and Sen. Thune are anti-choice.  They are "anti" choices that they think do grave harm to the public.  Todd and Sen. Thune differently assess the moral implications of the choices discussed above.  I leave it to the reader who have reasoned better. 

Update: Contra the implication of Anna's post, I have never taken a public position regarding a pharmacist's right to refuse to honor a prescription for contraception.   

"Stealth Fighter McCain"

You gotta appreciate the headline.  Jason points out that some will take the recent endorsements of John McCain by major newspapers and Joe Lieberman as a reminder of McCain's deviations from the conservative orthodoxy.  No doubt true.  It may also be that McCain will tap into a segment of the population that is tired of petty bickering.  Julie Ponzi makes this postulation. 

McCain may be able to prove that one can bicker without that bickering being petty.  McCain certainly is capable of picking political fights (unfortunately sometimes those fights are with those on his own side).  But as we have witnessed McCain's approach to Hillary Clinton, he seems capable of disagreement without being disagreeable.  McCain has strongly criticized Clinton without attacking her personally. 

John McCain can stand firm for things while creating unity.  This makes him distinct from Barack Obama, the other "unity" candidate, who attempts to forge consensus around insipid and empty appeals to "hope" and "new politics."  Still, one would like to see a race between Obama and McCain.  It might be good for the country to avoid those who are married to hyper-partisanship. 

For those who care (precious few, I suspect), I am on the road and my blogging will be light for the next couple weeks. 

SDP Movie Review: I Am Legend

My son and I went to see Will Smith in I Am Legend this past weekend.  It is one of those movies that manages to display both the awesome strengths of modern cinema, and its appalling weaknesses.  No one who likes horror films could say that this was a bad movie.  And even those who don't would have to admit to some astonishment at Smith's performance.  He is one of those rare actors who can carry a movie pretty much all by himself.  He has to, as for most of the way through he is the only remaining human being. 

Smith plays Robert Neville, apparently the only survivor of a terrible plague that has wiped out most of humanity and reduced the remained few to bloodthirsty monsters.  I should say, as the resident SDP expert on the undead, the monsters in IAL are not vampires, as in the original novel, nor true zombies.  They are pseudo-zombies, unable to bear exposure to daylight, and lusting for the blood of living creatures.  Neville roams the streets of New York by day, talking to his dog and maintaining relationships with department store manikins, but must retreat to his fortified house at night.  He is also a scientist who was once expected to save the world from the plague.  He continues to believe that he can do this in his basement lab.

The movie is extraordinarily good almost to the very end.  But the ending is a disappointment.  Richard Matheson's I Am Legend was easily one of the most influential horror novels ever written.    It probably ranks fourth, behind The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dracula, and Frankenstein in that order.  But if the first three are better known in film, and more frequently read, Matheson's work has spawned far more dark progeny.  Although the novel was about a lone human being surrounded by vampires, it inspired an undying throng of zombie movies beginning with George Romero's  Night of the Living Dead. 

Matheson's novel has a delightful and extraordinarily imaginative ending, which explains its unusual title.   I am not going to spoil that ending for anyone.  Read the book.  Or if you want the short version, see the Wikipedia entry.  The makers of the current film had not the courage to be loyal to Matheson's vision, which is incomparably more interesting than the story they tell.  That aside, it is a rocking good movie.  And the dog should get an Oscar. 

The Incredible Huck!

I began commenting on Mike Huckabee's campaign back in January, when I was pretty much the only one besides his dog who noticed that he was getting ready to run.  I would like to tell you that I saw all this coming.  But in fact I described his campaign as "amusing."  Well, just right now it ain't funny anymore.  The Man From Hope II has a solid lead in Iowa (10 points in the RCP spread), and has taken on Reagan's old political wizard, Ed Rollins to manage his suddenly serious campaign.  So is Huckabee really the coming thing?

I still have my doubts.  Huckabee is not leading in any of the other important state polls that I have seen.  He is still in fourth place in New Hampshire, which he would like to win in order to keep his momentum going.  He is competitive in South Carolina, where the GOP field is pretty evenly split, but he is still in fourth place.  He is running third in Florida (which will have only a diminished role in the Convention), but Giuliani still has a commanding lead there. 

In many respects, Huckabee's surge reminds one of Howard Dean, without the hysterics.  He is in better shape at this point than Dean was in 2004.  Dean's flag was already drooping as the caucus neared, where Huckabee is just now rising.  Huckabee seems to be riding the Christian right as Dean rode the anti-war left, but that raises the same questions about Huck's ability to appeal to a wider range of voters next November. 

But Huckabee's heavy investment in his former role as a Baptist preacher is not, I think, his greatest weakness.  Nor is it his ignorance of foreign policy, exactly.  It is his remarkable disinterest in foreign policy.  Whatever he is reading to bone up for the debates, it isn't world news.  Moreover, he seems to have Carter-like inclinations on foreign policy.  He seems to think that he can solve the problem of Iran by engaging in dialog with some kind of sincerity that is lacking in the current administration. On the other hand, he is all for sending troops into Pakistan to chase the Taliban.  So his idea of foreign policy   
is to be nicer to hostile regimes, and invade those who are our close allies.  I don't think that is ignorance.  It's lack of attention. And if he really does believe in the power of sincerity, he is clearly not fit for the Oval Office. 

I doubt that we will be talking about Mike Huckabee after the first few contests.  If we are, it will be bad sign for the Republicans.  I don't think that Huckabee can unify the GOP.  He might do what the left has longed for: split the evangelicals from the Republican party in the way that Jesse Jackson once split the Democrat party along racial lines in the primaries.  But I don't expect that.  The Christian right has a history of pragmatism.  They backed Kay Bailey Hutchinson for the Texas Senate seat, even though she was pro-choice.  I expect that they will be more interested in defeating Clinton or Obama than in making sure that the Republican nominee has been born more than once.

ps.  Has anyone else noticed that Campbell's Sea Salt Chef in their recent commercials looks astounding like Mike Huckabee?  This was the best image I could find. 

Watch one of these commercials.  It's the Huck, alright!  Once again I have the eerie feeling that God is talking to me.  And as usual, I have no idea what He is getting at. 

Iraq: The Best Story of the Year

Tim Hames, writing in the Times of London: 

By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today returning home.

The cheering has, of course, to come accompanied by caveats. Security has certainly been improved, but it remains fragile. Basra and the surrounding areas, handed back by Britain yesterday, are not as violent as they were a few months ago but this comparative peace has been bought at a high price in terms of tolerating intolerance (particularly towards women).

Also, there is a telling contrast between what has been won by the American “surge” and lost through the British “slump”. We once boasted about the virtues of a “softly-softly” style, allegedly honed in Northern Ireland, but the truth is that the British Forces have been so softly-softly that the local militias long ago decided that we were not very serious about using our troops to exercise influence. The Baghdad Government is not impressive and what progress there has been is despite, not because of it. There is much hard work to be done if a constitutional settlement is to be completed.

Yet none of this should detract from what has been achieved in Iraq so unexpectedly this year.

Note also these remarks by Reuel Marc Gerecht: "What had seemed gospel in some quarters--Iraq's 'civil war' is unstoppable and American armed forces cannot do anything to diminish the fratricidal conflict--looks less certain today."

McCain's Joe-mentum

There's a lot of talk about the recent endorsement of John McCain by Joe Lieberman, leading some to wonder what significance the cross-party endorsement will carry.  I would agree with Paul Mirengoff over at Powerline, who says that the biggest advantage for McCain will be attracting independent voters in New Hampshire (in New Hampshire, independent voters can participate in either party's primary).  The endorsement might remind voters that McCain is a "unity" candidate.  Yet, even the idea of Lieberman-McCain unity might be untenable.  Independent voters sympathetic to Barack Obama's unity campaign might throw their weight behind him, especially after the Iowa primaries.  I would disagree with Mirengoff that the Lieberman endorsement is truly meaningful for a successful McCain campaign outside of New Hampshire.  I don't see how Lieberman's endorsement appeals to any significant voting group at this point.

Even worse than being insignificant, the endorsement might even cause a backlash against McCain.  The anti-McCain conservatives deeply distrust him on issues of gun control, stem cell research, tax cuts, and global warming.  Working with Ted Kennedy on immigration angered several conservatives concerned about the border.  Not to mention the BCRA with Russ Feingold that has free speech advocates still fuming.  Lieberman himself might be the problem.  While Republicans respect Lieberman's stance on the war and national security, he's devoted little time to conservative policies, especially on domestic issues.  He votes solidly with the Democratic caucus on everything except the war.  Rather than invoke the image of unity, Lieberman's endorsement might remind Republican primary voters (who will matter much more in the long run than the independents in New Hampshire) of the trust issues over the years with McCain.

UPDATE:  Professor Bainbridge has been assessing Republican candidates that you might find worthwhile reading.  He takes on McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Tancredo in this post.  He returned to Huckabee in a recent post and, after Andrew Sullivan's endorsement of Ron Paul, now sets his sights on the latter.

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.