South Dakota Politics

Please Welcome Mondak to the Local Blogosphere

Friend and frequent reader of SDP, Mondak, has launched a new blog, Dakota 21.  You can find it here: http://dakota21.typepad.com/dakota_21/.  I know from Mondak's frequent notes that he is an unusually thoughtful and generous interlocutor.  He goes out of his way to give credit where credit is due, and assume the best about the people he is arguing with.  There is a lot to be said for that.  He does seem to be very irritated at Pat Powers, but you can check that out on his blog.

Oddly enough, my SDP colleague Jason Heppler had just suggested that we encourage Mondak to start his own blog when he started his own blog.  I recommend that our readers check out Dakota 21. 

The Bat Man's Nemesis: Dark Knight Reviewed

When I was a young man reading comic books, there were only two villains that ever genuinely scared me: Spider-Man's nemesis, the Green Goblin, and the Joker.  The Joker was terrifying.  A lot of people are a little bit unnerved by clowns.  The Joker is what such people are afraid of.  He transformed symbols of mirth into what biologists call warning colors: in this case, warnings of pure, homicidal malevolence.  Most criminals, however ruthless, are at least moderated by the very vices that they serve.  They want wealth, or power, or just like to bully people.  In the worst case they get what they want and then hop in the get away car and beat it.  The Joker, as Alfred puts in The Dark Knight, wants to see the world burn.  And he wants to see souls burn along with bodies and buildings, and knows how to get the fire going.  Put a little face paint on that, and you've got the greatest villain that DC Comics, or maybe anyone, ever invented.   When Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) hands Batman the playing card, at the end of Batman Begins, the hair stood up on the back of my neck. 

No one has ever done the Joker justice on screen, until now.  Caesar Romero in the 1966 series looked more like the comic book character than anyone else, but was about as scary as Barney the purple dinosaur.  Jack Nicholson did the Joker with flair, but played the role for laughs rather than chills.  The late Heath Ledger gave us the genuine article, all the way down to the existential horror that the character represented. This interpretation was a work of pure genius. It is a great tragedy for genre fans that Ledger died before the movie even opened. 

The Dark Knight is an extraordinary piece of film making.  It blows its predecessor away, and Batman Begins was a very good movie.  It succeeds in combining all the genuine elements of the comic book with a kind of seriousness and a feeling of plausibility that the other great superhero movies of recent years never come close to. The Joker has no super powers, nor any technological wonders at his disposal (unlike the Bat Man).  His weapons bombs, guns, and a little knife that seems to have crawled out from scars that turn his lips into a permanent smile.  Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne, Michael Caine as Alfred, Morgan Freeman as Batman's quartermaster, all are superb. 

The movie was not without glaring flaws.  It was too long by a good half hour, with way too much time devoted to Batman racing from point A to point B, not fighting but just trying to avoid trash cans and concrete posts. A lot of plot elements were contrived, and a few were silly.  They squeezed in a second villain from the comic series, and that was a little too clever.

 

It is also very dark, and some viewers will find it depressing.  I did not.  It presents genuine portraits of nobility in the face of evil that were more than one expects in such a context.  Hollywood has figured out how to give us the kind of movie that superhero fans have longed dreamed of.  If you like this sort of thing, don't miss The Dark Knight.  But if you are afraid of clowns, beware.

Dark Knight: A Review

The new Batman film, Dark Knight, is a superior film skillfully using all the weapons of the superhero genre to create a moral tapestry at once complex and satisfying.  The action is hot, the acting is top notch, and the film makes one think while offering the eye candy one wants from a summer superhero blockbuster.  Can you tell I recommend the film? 

Dark Knight starts with Batman having to deal with Batman impostors as much as the criminal element.  This itself indicates one of the film's themes: who has the right to use violence for the public good?  What makes Batman a hero while others who wear his uniform are just vigilantes?  The film is clever is showing good and evil in its complexity while not hedging that good is superior to evil.  But doing good in a messy world is not as easy as it sometimes seems.  Batman himself suffers from the trouble of all film noir heroes (or anti-heroes, if you prefer): he represents a challenge to public order while attempting to maintain public order. 

Enter the Joker.  In addition to the more human reasons for mourning the death of Heath Ledger, his portrayal of the Joker should make us miss him as an actor.  I suspect an Oscar nomination is coming his way, and not just out of sentiment.  This film's Joker, similar to that of the original Michael Keaton Batman featuring Jack Nicholson as the Joker,  is a slightly mad yet deviously clever criminal who takes a perverse joy in causing mayhem.  But Ledger's Joker goes beyond this.  Not content to rule Gotham's organized crime and have more money than he could ever spend (he has other peculiar plans for the money), he wants to prove to Gotham the absurdity of doing "good" in a world where good is simply a word to describe what we prefer.  The Joker is a deranged Nietzschean (or do I repeat myself) who throughout the film takes delicious joy in doing the worst evil.  Ledger's Joker is not the comedian of Nicholson's interpretation.  Although his keen sense of the absurd does make him amusing at times, he does not make evil fun; he makes evil look evil. 

The error of much modern film is that it makes evil more interesting than good (that is a failing of that first Batman film).  This film does not fall into that trap.  By forcing Bruce Wayne and District Attorney Harvey Dent (played well by Aaron Eckhart) to question their own motives and the right course in their pursuit of good, Dark Knight makes the struggle to do good as interesting as the semi-comedic evil they fight.  They want good, but they must be prudent, meaning they must find the right means to achieve good.  They do not want to become what they fight, namely a nihilist who asserts his will rather than good men who obey a notion of justice outside of their own desires. One of the few disappointments I have with the film going experience is the laughter some viewers had with the Joker, a character so obviously devoted to cruelty as a way of life. As I noted above, the Joker is amusing at times, but as the film develops his sadism is so clear that he is no longer an object worthy of laughter.  I think this error is on the part of some in the audience, not the film.  In a compelling scene towards the film's end, good is reaffirmed dramatically by the choices of certain pawns in the Joker's game to destroy all belief in good.   

The early part of the film suffers from some muddy plot development, but once it gets going it is an exciting morality tale.  The Joker essentially makes war on Gotham, and all civilization, forcing those with responsibility to face a myriad of difficult choices regarding how to fight him.  Does fighting evil require one to do evil?  Do the people need a heroes to retain their commitment to good and, ultimately, civilization? Does the maintenance of order require a strong executive hand?  The question of the necessity of dictatorship is explicitly discussed in the film. 

The film makes some conscious allusions to the war on terror.  Indeed, the Joker is called a terrorist.  This is not an inaccurate description of him (with caveats not worth discussing here).  So the questions above are not just questions for the film characters, but for those who wish to maintain civilization.  What must be done to retain civilization?  The film even includes a surveillance system that allows Batman to listen in on all calls in Gotham.  Is this ethical? It is certainly useful, even necessary, but does that make it right? In a discussion that might make us think of George Bush, does justice require some who are willing to do the good that is unpopular, thus becoming unpopular themselves, in order  for civilization to endure its trials?  Note that by unpopular I do not mean unjust. 

I must point out that the film is too long.  It was in serious need of another edit.  The film appears to come to a conclusion with an explosion and a change in the life of Harvey Dent.  But it then moves on to a third (or fourth) act that introduces new plot twists and cliffhangers that simply are too much at this point.  This is my one substantive complaint about the film (ok, and a couple times it seems as if Gary Oldman, as Lt. Gordon, slips into his English accent). I warn viewers that the film is violent and not for young children.

Dark Knight is rumored to be heading for a record setting weekend.  It deserves all the money its makes.  Go see Dark Knight.    

Obama and Iraq: A Multitude of Contradictions

The Advantages & Disadvantages of CO2 for Life

The Isaiah of Climate Change, Al Gore, is once again gazing at the moon.  From Real Clear Politics:

Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

Ok, let's think about this.  A certain amount of sun hits the earth every year.  Fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas, contain solar energy stored over, well, millions of years.  So how much of fossil fuel output can solar energy replace, given the most efficient technology?  What's one divided by millions?  Biofuels, by the way, are just another form of solar energy collection.  Wind energy is solar energy plus the push from the earth's rotation.  Only in some places does the wind blow hard and regular, more or less.  Those places tend to be far away from the centers of energy demand.  What is the total bounty from wind energy?    Probably a lot less than the potential solar bounty.  Add to that the geothermal energy Gore is talking about, and you could maybe keep the lights on in Las Vegas for a good holiday weekend.  If anybody could get there. 

The Register in England has a great article about the Cambridge physicist David J C MacKay.  He is working on a book that adds up all the numbers.  Renewable energy sources don't add up.  The only energy source that can substantially add to our energy stocks is nuclear power.  Fast breeder reactors may be the ticket.  Gore isn't much interested in nuclear power, even though it creates no green house emissions.   

Al Gore warns us about global warming, and gives us charts of Manhattan underwater to make his point.   But it's worth while asking whether increased CO2 in the atmosphere might have some advantages.  Gore and the global warming evangelists see CO2 as pollution, but that's not the way the plants see it.  From Investor's Business Daily:

Even as the G-8 Summit announced plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, researchers at the Johann Heinrich von Theunen Institute in Germany find the rise in carbon dioxide levels may in fact be a boon to plant life on Earth.

The Theunen Institute, which has been monitoring the phenomenon since 1999, trained CO2 jets on plants, raising CO2 concentrations in the air around them to 550 parts per million (ppm), significantly higher than today's levels.

The researchers announced on Tuesday that such increased exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields.

"Output increased by about 10% for barley, beets and wheat" when the plants were exposed to the higher levels, according to the Institute's Hans-Joachim Weigel.

That the Earth is getting greener due to higher CO2 levels was confirmed recently by satellite data analyzed by scientists Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the earth's vegetation increased by a whopping 6.2%.

"Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates," explained Lawrence Solomon in a June 7 article on the Running/Nemani findings in Canada's Financial Post.

"Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."

So global warming may be very bad if you own beach front property, but it might be very good for every voter with roots and leaves, or paws for that matter.  It's nice to think that what's good for the Bay Area is good for the planet, but it ain't necessarily so.  Maybe we need to think about all of this, and not just earnestly feel the right way. 

Washington Post On Obama & Iraq

I have been one of the few conservatives in recent years who had anything good to say about the Washington Post.  The WaPo is a solidly Democratic paper, with a healthy liberal bias on almost all political questions.  But it seemed to me that they were what the New Republic used to be: a liberal publication capable of thinking without a constant regard for the party line.  For that reason, I have been a loyal reader.  When they disagree with me, which is a lot of the time, I know they aren't just knee-jerk liberals. 

The current editorial on Barack Obama's Iraq policy is one of the best pieces of its kind in years. 

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Yes.  Obama has become the people he has been warning us about.  The basic reason for this is that Obama, like most Democrats, seems to be able to hold only one idea in his mind at one time: beat the Republicans.  He intends to go to Iraq, but why?  To find out what the situation is?  No.  He announced he is going because it looks good to be going.  His policy decisions have nothing to do with realities over there.  They have everything to do with realities in the electoral college. 

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

Barack Obama has built his campaign on two claims, a vague promise of change, and his opposition to the war in Iraq.  The latter was supposed to prove that he had better judgment and/or was more principled than the recent leadership of the Democratic Party.  But his judgment failed spectacularly with regard to the President's surge policy.  My SDP colleague Mr. Heppler points out that the Obama campaign has quietly removed his earlier remarks declaring the surge a failure in advance.  So much for his shrewd judgment.

Right now Obama is doing a delicate dance.  He moves to the right on dozens of issues, hoping to convince independents and moderate Democrats that he is, well, a moderate Democrat.  But he has to keep the activist core convinced that he is true Anti-Bush, and will deliver us from Iraq right away in 16 months.  He figures it doesn't really matter what he says about any of this, just as it doesn't matter what he said or promised about accepting public financing.  He can always say that circumstances have changed. 

I actually think that this dancing is the most encouraging thing about Obama.  He might, like President Clinton, dance around to policies that actually work, if only because that is the way to win a second term.  The trouble is that his administration, much more than Bill Clinton's, is going to be manned by the activist core, and dependent on less flexible interest groups like the teacher's unions.  He is going to find a lot of these folks lining up with unpaid notes full of campaign promises.  There is no such thing as a free promise in politics. 

Is the Iraq War Over?

Unlike "conventional wars," wars against insurgencies rarely have clean beginnings or endings.  So it seems a bit rash to declare that the Iraq war is over, as embedded reporter Michael Yon does.  But you will see that he works his way rather cautiously into the assertion:

The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

Yon provides a Power Point down load that lays out in graphic detail the dramatic improvements in Iraq since the surge began.  Check out the "Ethno-sectarian violence" graph.  Wow.  It sure looks like a war winding down to a close. Barack Obama has promised to end the war in Iraq.  It looks like George W. may have beaten him to it. 

Thune Amendment Boosts Tribal Law Enforcement

Argus Leader:  "The Senate is poised to vote on an amendment Wednesday that would redirect $2 billion in funding for law enforcement, health care and water projects in Indian Country.  The amendment, part of the $50 billion foreign assistance bill, was introduced by Sen. John Thune."

Is This the Sort of "Change" He Meant?

The New York Daily News catches the Ministry of Truth at the Obama Campaign scrubbing his website of criticism of the troop "surge" in Iraq, which Obama had once considered a "problem" that hadn't reduced violence:

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."

The Associated Press has also taken notice.  Buttressed with Obama's dishonest New York Times op-ed from yesterday, its little wonder that a majority of Americans feel that Obama tells people what he thinks they want to hear, or adopts "Change" when it fits current events.

Political Humor & Its Discontents

I thought my post on the New Yorker cover might draw a response.  It did.  Just after I posted it I noticed that my esteemed Keloland colleague Bob Schwartz also posted on the cover, presenting a case against the cover.  Bob has this:

Of course The “New Yorker” is standing by their cover despite the condemnation that is coming pretty much from all sides including both the Obama and McCain campaign’s. They state that the satire was obvious and that their readership was smart enough to figure out the real meaning.

The problem with that logic of course is that while the “New Yorker’s” readers might be smart enough, as the WND poll shows, not everyone is a “New Yorker” kind of reader and all that cover has really done is put an image to the ridiculous beliefs of those who refuse to do even the most basic research and who probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

Intrepid reader BB has this comment, in much the same spirit:

Obama is in muslin or portrayed as Muslim? Big difference Ken. Also the "cleric" is none other than Osama bin Laden. That the wingnuts will use this against Obama is already evident in their blogs. Unfortunately the people that they pander to do not have "a sophisticated sense of humor." There are large parts of the populace that still believe that Obama is a secret Muslim. I actually kind of liked the cartoon but I also think that it was in poor taste given the sensitivity of such issues.

I should send BB a stipend for acting as a proof reader.  Thanks, Bob.  I corrected the typo.  As to the substance, what my colleague and reader seem to be saying is that political humor should be limited to the lowest common denominator.  Unless the bozos can get it, don't print it.  I could not disagree more. 

Did George Carlin worry about the goof balls who wouldn't get his satire?   I dare say not.  Political humor is supposed to be edgy, and ought to be clever.  It is frequently harsh and biting.  Sometimes it makes great demands of its audience, which is as it should be. But if you want it to be good, you can't put shackles on it or expect it to abide by Marquis of Queensbury rules.  Here might be my favorite example of political humor, or assassination, depending on your view.

The English actor and playwright Samuel Foote (1720-1777) was engaged in argument with Lord Sandwich in, where else, a pub.  "Foote," said Lord Sandwich, "I have often wondered what catastrophe would bring you to your end, but I think you must die either by the pox, or on the gallows."  Foote replied without missing a beat: "That would depend on whether I embrace your lordship's mistress, or your lordship's principles."  Not that was a good English foote to the arse.    There wasn't enough left of Sandwich to bury in a condom. 

Most political humor does not rise to that level of cleverness.  The New Yorker cover certainly did not.  But if you want to strangle cleverness in its crib, you need only insist that all comedy be in good taste, and that it respect the sensitivity of the issues.  The reaction to the New Yorker cover in the general press demonstrates that our political culture has become altogether too stuffy.  It's high time some good wits let a little air out of our shirts.

ps.

Intrepid reader and friend Gene sends me this:

Wow,  a "sophisticated sense of humor".  Guess I never got past the "in your face" satire.  But I think the attached cartoon will elict a chuckle from even the "sophisticated".  Take care--Gene

The New Yorker Cover

Well, at least it wasn't the Dutch this time.  The New Yorker has offended the sensibilities of the sensitive press by the cover art reproduced to the right.  Cyberspace is awash with righteous indignation, even though no one doubts that the image is a caricature not of Mr. and Ms. Obama, but of their critics. 

Michelle Obama is depicted as a gun toting Angela Davis type, and we see an American flag burning in the fireplace.  The Democratic nominee is presented as a Muslim, with the portrait of a Cleric looking over his shoulder, all in the Oval Office. 

I am sorry, but this funny.  I am not likely to endorse Ms. Obama for first lady, but only a full tilt loon could take this portrait seriously.  Whatever the Obama's are, they are as American as a pair of Egg McMuffins.  The cover art makes good fun of the tendency of some of us to view politicians and pundits through the most fevered imagination.  Some people do probably believe that this is an accurate portrait, just as our esteemed Keloland blogger David Newquist believes that the Aberdeen American News has a "petit-fascist philosophy." No reasonable person would make such a mistake. 

It's also probably true, as some wounded left wing patriots have alleged, that bozos on the right will circulate this cover as evidence for the coming Muslim take-over.  But that is the risk of all satire.  If the New Yorker cover is failed satire, as Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly has alleged,  it is because it assumed a sophisticated sense of humor on the part of the press.  I could have warned them about that.  When you spend as  much time as many Democrats and journalists do looking for attacks on your patriotism, you aren't a good audience for satire. 

Obama himself has come out to complain.  Bad strategy, I am thinking.  He doesn't need to look oversensitive right now, or ever.  He might have said: "look, when you are running for President, you get all kinds of grief.  Actually, I thought Michelle looked kinda cute in that afro."  When J.F.K. was entertaining some British politician, he complained about the way the press was treating Jackie.  "What would you do if newspapers were writing about your wife's drinking?" Kennedy asked, exasperated.  The Brit replied, without batting an eye, "I'd tell 'em: you should see her mother!" 

Political humor cannot go after our conceits (and they are legion) without offending our sensibilities.  Maybe I would have been writing an offended post if the same thing had been done to McCain.  I like to think not. 

 

Socialism Isn't Dead, But It Sure Smells Funny

My esteemed Keloland colleague Cory Heidelberger still clings to the dream.  He informs us that an NPR series makes socialized medicine look pretty good.  No! Ya think?  I have to say that I am skeptical of any national health care plan at this point, free market or othewise.  And maybe they will take away my conservative card, but I am not convinced that a decent national health service can't work.  A lot of reasonable folks say that the systems in France and the Netherlands is pretty good.  Of course, these were the same reasonable people who told us that Castro's Cuba was a model for Latin America.  But a stopped clock is right twice a day, so maybe socialism in health care can work. 

But if you are going to make it work, you will have to make sure it doesn't work like socialism.  The latter surely ranks as the most frequently tested idea in modern politics.  The results have ranged from bad to disastrous.  Just look at France, which is said to have this great medical care system.  I wrote a lot about France back when mobs of immigrant youth were burning thousands of cars every day, instead of a few hundred on Saturday night (which is what passes for normal).  Jurgen Reinhoudt at Real Clear Politics has this:

To say that France's social model is far from perfect is an understatement: in spite of the state absorbing more than 50% of GDP, France has suffered, since the 1980s, from rising child poverty rates, persistently high unemployment, a chronic sense of economic malaise, and the continual enrichment of the system's "insiders" at the expense of the system's "outsiders." More importantly, France's social model fails to deliver precisely what it proclaims to: economic justice, inter-generational fairness, economic opportunity and social protection, particularly to young workers entering the labor market, minorities, immigrants, middle-aged women and other vulnerable groups.

Reinhoudt relies heavily on Timothy Smith, and his book France in Crisis (Cambridge University Press, 2006).  Smith is, we are told, much fonder of the social model in Sweden and the Netherlands.  I don't know about Sweden, but the low country is sure having their share of social turmoil lately. Maybe socialism works only at higher altitudes. 

Socialism means social control of the government and economy, as opposed to private control of the latter.  It always promises "society" protection from competition or inconvenience on the part of someone or something else.  In some cases the something else is market forces.  Protecting people from market forces, like keeping them hovering in the air, is expensive.  Someone has to pay to keep someone else aloft.  If you've got a job in France you have protection galore, against people who don't have jobs but want them.  In all cases what socialism protects someone from is someone else.  Every European society works the same.  Part of the society is privileged and protected against another part of the society, which is bought off by housing subsides and free health care.  That holds up as long as the productive part of society can afford it. 

Oh, and the productive part also has to have a few babies now and then.  That ain't happening in Europe.  Once you get firmly enough wedded to the idea that government is all about providing you a comfortable life and long vacations, children just seem like another burden. You are already paying for enough North African immigrants as it is.   

Race for the White House Tied

Rasmussen:  "For the second straight day, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the race for the White House is tied. Sunday’s numbers show Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 43% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, the two candidates are tied at 46%."

Roger Simon comments:  "I had always assumed that the race would tighten up in October, but we’re a long way from then. Why so early? What does this mean? Well, I might go on about this at more length, but it’s obvious Barack’s deep in the old Catch-22, not able to look like the candidate of change or 'new' politics as he slips-slides to the center. And to make matters worse, he can’t even go that far to the middle without sounding like a total hypocrite and alienating his base."