South Dakota Politics

More From Cracker Barrel

Just a couple more items from the cracker barrel today:

Term limits: Rep. Burt Elliott, who is term limited, said he didn't have a problem with term limits, but a legislator's time on both chambers should count against him.  In his typically colorful way he described the current system as "poopy."  Perhaps we should make time in both chambers count toward a longer limit.

Sen. Jim Hundstad said that term limits make the legislature weaker versus other branches of government, an opinion seconded by Rep. David Novstrup.

TransCanada: A man asked why we are giving excise tax breaks to TransCanada.  Rep. Paul Dennert argued that "sometimes you gotta give a something to get a something."  You give a tax break now because you think you'll eventually get more revenue in the future.

Aberdeen Cracker Barrel: Education Talk Heats Up

Today may have been the feistiest cracker barrel in my six years attending these session in Aberdeen.  I will deal with some other issues from the event in a separate post in order to concentrate on education here. 

The education lobby came loaded for bear.  One person asked why teachers should have to work more to get a raise. Doesn't that just show that the work they do now isn't valued?  No one who spoke disagreed, with Sen. Hundstad (I believe, I didn't write it down) arguing that "education is the cornerstone of our democracy."  Another questioner asked whether people in Pierre just don't value education.  Again, those who spoke did not argue with the premise of the question with Rep. Burt Elliott most vociferously agreeing.  Elliott said that there are some in Pierre who think that education should be done at home.  While parents are the best educators, Elliott continued, the public school system is necessary to educate children.  Elliot said that education was like basketball coaching: everyone thinks he's a professional.  A third questioner asked directly Rep. Al Novstrup whether he thought teachers were professionals.  He answered in the affirmative.  The questioner then asked why teachers aren't paid at the level of other professionals.  He declined to answer what was clearly a hostile question. 

The show really heated up when Aberdeen Superintendent Gary Harms spoke.  His main question was what the percentage increase in spending this year would be.  He praised the role of education in our society and thanked those who fight to defend it.  He mentioned by name Reps. Elliot and Dennert and Sens. Hoerth and Hundstad.  Conspicuous by their absence where Reps. David and Al Novstrup.  This did not go unobserved.  David Novstrup got up immediately and said that he is for education, but that education spending must be balanced with other priorities.  He said he would vote for as much spending as he could but would not vote to spend money the state doesn't have.  He mentioned that he had emailed Dr. Harms but hadn't heard back from him.  Dr. Harms announced to the crowd that he had never received an email from David Novstrup.  Rep. Novstrup said he had emails on his computer right there if Dr. Harms would like to look.  Dr. Harms never took Rep. Novstrup up on the offer. 

Then Rep. Al Novstrup spoke.  He mentioned that last year the Aberdeen school district received an increase of about 12% from the state, but he noticed that in the media Dr. Harms said they only received 2%.  When Rep. Novstrup asked Dr. Harms about this, Dr. Harms said that the school district doesn't count all of that money.  Well, said Rep. Novstrup, "if you don't count it, don't cash the check."  He also made the point that education must be balanced against other priorities.  For example, the state pays for 10,000 senior citizens (I am quoting from memory, so I may have this number wrong) to be in nursing homes.  People who work in those facilities make $8.00 and hour.  As he put it, why are we paying $8.00 for people to deal with death on a daily basis.  The point, I take it, is that this is also a priority that legislators have to balance. 

For I believe the first time I was motivated to ask a question at a cracker barrel.  I asked if there is anything besides increasing funding that we can do to improve education.  I prefaced my remarks by citing the statistics I put here about this history of per pupil spending in our country (in short, after controlling for inflation we spend almost three times as much per pupil as in 1965).  It spoke volumes that essentially no one answered my question other than Al Novstrup.  Jim Hundstad gave a speech in praise of education.  America is where it is today, he argued, because of its commitment to education.  Other nations learned this lesson and Hundstad seemed to intimate that they had learned the lesson better than the United States, suggesting that we don't fund education as much as we should and therefore aren't as committed to education as other nations (Sen. Hundstad seems unaware that outside of Norway and Sweden, no industrialized nation spends as much per pupil as the United States, at least on secondary education, a fact supported by the graph on the right that I found here).   Al Novstrup actually tried to answer my question, citing the Teach for America program and merit pay for teachers as two policies that could help education.  Paul Dennert spoke simply to say that the state per pupil expenditure is more than the formula (which is around $4,800).  With all outside money included, South Dakota spends about $8,000 per student, which I think makes my point even stronger that if we have a problem in education money has little to do with it.  Jim Hundstad then spoke again, basically saying we've got top notch kids and we are doing a great job.  That doesn't quite fly with his earlier suggestion that we are dangerously underfunding education.  If we are already doing a great job educating our kids in South Dakota, why is the need for money so desperate?  I point out once again that I am for increased funding for education and higher teachers pay; I simply do not live under the illusion that this will serve as some kind of panacea for education.

From what I have heard from various legislators, the South Dakota Education Association is near the bottom in its quality of lobbying.  If today is any indication, it is not hard to see why.  It's a pretty bad idea in South Dakota to spend all your time and money attacking Republicans and expect to get a favorable hearing for your agenda.  It also becomes clearer with each passing day that the only reform of education that the education establishment favors is spending more money.  But as I have demonstrated recently and again in this post, the United States spends more than almost any industrialized nation on education and we spend far more per pupil than in decades past.  So what happened?  I realize there are social factors that may explain why you need to spend more per student than in years past (and remember, I am already taking inflation into account), but three times as much?  And yet we still hear cries of "crisis!"? 

Let's take an example of how education can get worse while spending more money.  I was discussing this with a friend tonight who is a university colleague and who used to be a junior high teacher.  This friend really enjoys math and knows quite a bit about math education while not being a mathematician.  He argued that our system treats very good math students poorly by not advancing them fast enough, giving students bad text books, and educating our best in brightest at big research universities that teach math in classrooms of 250 students with a graduate assistant doing the teaching.  He further stated that math is one area where a national curriculum might be in order.  Because math is a subject where you must build on previous knowledge, in our highly transient population students who switch schools might miss whole chunks of math because each school system seems to have a different sequence in math.  One school might teach percentages in the third grade and another in fifth.  If a kid leaves the first school after third grade and then goes to fifth grade in the second school, he learns percentages twice but is likely missing a whole year of something else (say, long division or fractions).  All in all, these are  problems that not one dime of government money is going to cure.  I suggest most every subject has similar problems.  I have stated before that most history in junior high and high schools is taught by people who neither majored nor minored in history.  Is it a mystery, then, why every National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that our high school juniors do not know the very basics of American history? We now have at least two generations of Americans almost wholly ignorant of their own history.  And now the first ignorant generation is teaching the second and even a third.

Might I also suggest that part of the problem is the attitude bred sometimes by schools of education and on display a bit today.  As I noted above, Rep. Elliott, a former teacher, said that education is an area where everyone thinks he's an expert. He seems to be insinuating that "everyone" is not an expert and we should just leave education up to the experts, i.e., the professional educators.  This is an attitude that education is a kind of alchemy and only those who have attended Hogwarts School of Education and Sorcery know the special secrets.  There is an arrogance, to say nothing of a touch of gnosticism, in saying that only special people with special training have valid opinions on education and everyone else should just shut up and listen to them.  As a professional educator who has never taken an education class, every day I see great teachers who have also never taken an education class who do amazing things with their students.  They don't have a piece of paper that says they are a "highly qualified teacher," but they have something many do not have: a thorough knowledge of their field combined with native common sense and a passion for what they do.  None of those things can be learned through what passes for teacher education at our colleges and universities, and yet I submit that each of these is more central to quality teaching than knowing how to make a lesson plan or taking a class in developmental psychology (although these latter two qualities are helpful). 

By all means, legislators, increase spending on education.  But do not insinuate, as Sen. Hundstad did today, that our commitment to education is measured by how much we are willing to spend.  Compared to the industrialized world America spends plenty.  There are plenty of reforms in education that have nothing to do with money, but if the response, or lack thereof, I got to my question today is any indication, our legislators are almost wholly ignorant of those reforms.

SDP Jazz Note: the Box Set Problematic

If you are a jazz collector, you are confronted with a problematic over box sets.  Last summer I purchased John Coltrane: Fearless Leader, a collection of all the sets Trane recorded as leader in 1957-58.  This kind of collection looks irresistible to a jazz fan, at least until he or she buys it.  In the first place, you get a lot of music for your dollar. Fearless Leader included about a dozen Coltrane albums that I don't have to look for anymore and only one that I already had.  Second, a box set typically includes a lot of previously unreleased material: alternate takes, etc.  Third, it documents a period of time in a distinguished career and fourth,and most important of all, the material in jazz box sets is usually arranged by recording session.  A single recording session is a lot like a single malt scotch: it is not necessarily better, but it does have its own unique character and allows the connoisseur to taste that.   

On the other hand, box sets tend to gather dust on the shelf and remain unplayed on the iPod.  Because the box is such a big lump of material, it's hard to remember what you listened to last.  I solved the problem with Fearless Leader by replacing the disc 1, disc 2 album identification with recording session info., and tagging each song with the album title it was released on. That has made it easier to slowly listen my way through the material.  But that was a lot of work, and the work is maintained only on my home desk top and my iPod.   

I was recently tempted by two more box sets.  One of them was Coltrane's European Tours.    This represents the classic quartet: McCoy Tyner on piano, Jimmy Garrison on bass, Elvin Jones on drums.  But I had to ask myself: do I really need four versions of Naima? It is a great composition, one of the best standards in jazz.  But how many live versions is enough?  I passed, and picked out three of the individual albums on EMusic: Bye, Bye, Blackbird and The Paris Concert (62), and Afro Blue Impressions (63).  All three are excellent examples of the quartet in this period, but the last is superb and ranks with almost anything Trane put out.  Naima is there, along with My Favorite Things.  The polish of each performance and the interplay between the four makes it look like they wanted this to be their legacy. 

But I did acquire Herbie Hancock's Complete Blue Note Sixties Sessions.   This is a priceless collection, including seven complete albums.  Two of them, Maiden Voyage and Empyrean Isles, I already had, but most of the rest of the material was to die for. Taken as a whole, it documents a jazz master and brilliant composer coming into his own. The above mentioned albums are essential items in any core jazz collection.  Each composition has the colors of the sea-voyage theme woven into its fabric, and one can almost smell the salt air. 

The collection is also interesting for including Inventions and Dimensions, a very experimental work that, well, doesn't quite work out.  Hancock gave his side men nothing more than time signatures and some general indications to go on.  That's cutting edge!  As Mark Twain said of Wagner's music, "it's not as bad as it sounds."  The sixties would be the decade when a lot of jazz giants succumbed to the general disintegration of the culture. This material is worth listening to at least once.  Everything else on the Blue Note box is worth listening to over and over.  Hancock's work for Blue Note in the early sixties is one more reason any American has to be proud of her country. 

 

Gray Lady Down

This priceless cartoon from Ramirez.  Hat Tip to Powerline.

The Downside Of Government Health Insurance

Via First Things.  In the UK's National Health Service, apparently they won't pay for your breast cancer drug, and if you want to pay for it yourself they threaten to take away all your benefits.  How audacious!

One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself, while continuing with the rest of her publicly financed treatment.

By December, she had raised $20,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements before, put its foot down. Mrs. Hirst heard the news from her doctor.

“He looked at me and said: ‘I’m so sorry, Debbie. I’ve had my wrists slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that service,’ ” Mrs. Hirst said in an interview.

“I said, ‘Where does that leave me?’ He said, ‘If you pay for Avastin, you’ll have to pay for everything’ ” — in other words, for all her cancer treatment, far more than she could afford.

Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.

We will have equality, even if it kills us. 

 

Hillary Sunk?

John Dilulio gives a dissenting view, arguing Sen. Clinton can still win it. 

Kosovo & The Two Georges

When discussing the Presidency with American Government classes, I draw their attention to the weighty meaning of certain apparently innocent phrases in the Constitution.  Consider Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Now focus on the words "shall appoint Ambassadors".  Seems pretty unexciting, doesn't it?  It measn you can reward a loyal and generous supporter with a lush post in some attractive place.  But it also gives the President the power to recognize a foreign government, and that turns out to be a really big deal.

When George Bush 41 recognized Croatia, he triggered the beginning of the Balkan wars.  I thought that this recognition was premature, and I still do.  I was thus inclined to be skeptical of the decision by George Bush 43 to recognize the independence of Kosovo from Serbia.  The recent riot in Belgrade did much to confirm my skepticism.  From the Boston Globe:

A rampaging crowd of several hundred Serb demonstrators, incensed by the US recognition of Kosovo's independence, overran and burned part of the American Embassy in the Serbian capital of Belgrade yesterday.

The attack occurred as the Belgrade government staged a rally over Kosovo independence that drew 200,000 people, and illustrated the rage in Serbia over the loss of its historic province.

Did we really need to invite more trouble, and give the Russians more excuse to be, well, Russian?  But Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, has convinced me that Bush's decision was the right one. 

Forget all the nonsense that you may have heard about Kosovo being "the Jerusalem" of Serbia. It may contain some beautiful and ancient Serbian and Serbian Orthodox cultural sites, but it is much more like Serbia's West Bank or Gaza, with a sweltering, penned-up, subject population who were for generations treated as if they were human refuse in the land of their own birth. Nobody who has spent any time in the territory, as I did during and after the eviction of the Serb militias, can believe for a single second that any Kosovar would ever again submit to rule from Belgrade. It's over.

Like it or not, the U.S. got deeply involved in the disintegration of Yugoslavia when Clinton was president, and we aren't getting out of it soon.  And like George Dubya or not, he occasionally displays the virtue of calling things like they is.  Kosovo just ain't going to be part of Serbia no more.  Deal with it.  Hitchens makes a strong case that the Serb claims on Kosovo are without foundation in international law or recent precedent.  The place is 90% Albanian, and the Albanians aren't about to make happy with a Serb government that wants to flush them out of their homes.  Bush decided we might as well call this one, and I suppose he was right. 

Lowering The Hunting Age

Last year I opposed lowering the hunting age to ten.  The legislature rejected attempts to lower the age last year and so it has come back again.  I think I am changing my mind on this one.  There is no doubt, as I said last year, that there really isn't a groundswell to lower the hunting age.  But as I ponder the issue anew, I take this as a way to get kids to grow up and take responsibilities.  I certainly hope parents take care to only let their kids hunt if the kids are ready, but therein lies an incentive to get your kids ready.  If they want to hunt, they must show they are capable of handling the responsibility (and a gun).  Certainly in days of yore kids as young as ten faced responsibilities far more grave than hunting with dad.  Here is one way to get kids to learn what it means to be an adult. 

Trying Too Hard

A lesson from the New York Times John McCain fiasco is that news outlets, in their attempt to fill the news cycle and remain relevant, can sometimes strain the limits of what counts as news.  Here's another example, albeit not on the same level as the Times story. 

Apparently Barack Obama has met William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn.  Yes, that's about it.  For those who need reminding, Ayers and Dohrn, who are married, were part of the Weatherman movement of the 1960s and 1970s and were responsible for various terrorist acts committed in the name of "the revolution."  To this day they are unrepentant. 

Ayres and Dohrn also happen to live on Chicago's South Side, where Barack Obama lived and represented in the Illinois legislature.  They are celebrities in the leftist circles of Chicago.  Whatever one makes of the left's refusal to condemn Ayres and Dohrn for what they are, criminals, it is not surprising that an up and coming Democratic politician from the South Side crossed paths with these folks on various occasions. 

I have a confession.  I once met William Ayers, too.  In fact, I, ummm, visited the men's room with him.  I was adjuncting at Concordia-River Forest outside of Chicago as I wrapped up grad school.  A bunch of political science students there invited Ayers to speak on education policy (he was teaching in the ed school at the University of Illinois-Chicago).  I attended the event.  We chatted.  He seemed like a nice guy, although he did mention how his wife was once on the run from the law. It was then that I thought, "Hey, this guys name rings a bell."  I went home and looked him up in Peter Collier and David Horowitz's Destructive Generation.  Sure enough, it was that William (Bill) Ayers.  I once peed next to William Ayers.  I guess that makes me a radical, too. 

Odds Mounting Against Hillary

From the Washington Post:

Obama has a lead of 150 elected or "pledged" delegates, according to NBC's calculation (The Washington Post uses a different formula to count). Clinton needs to win 58 percent of all remaining pledged delegates simply to get her lead back, NBC political director Chuck Todd notes. But that's hypothetical. The reality is worse.

If Obama wins the remaining states he's favored in, such as Vermont, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oregon, then Clinton will need to win 65 percent of the vote in places such as Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, Todd said.

In other words, Clinton would have to magically reverse the trend, and win the big three by 2 to 1, as Obama has been doing to her everywhere else.  That would be surprising.

It is also worth mentioning that Ms. Clinton has been losing the popular vote by large margins.  If you exclude Florida and Michigan, where only Clinton was on the ballot, it looks like this:

State	Date	% Vote In		Obama	Clinton
Popular Vote Total	-	-		10,300,410	9,375,213

 

RealClearPolitics

That means that Obama has won almost a million more votes than Clinton. Now I don't think the popular vote has any particular moral or legal force here, but it would take a special sort of courage for the super delegates to ignore that big a gap in order to anoint Ms. Clinton.  And why would they do such a thing?  Few have any great faith any more in Ms. Clinton's political judgment, and as for electability, how is she going to win in November when she can't get a majority of Democrats to vote for her?

New York Times Exposes Itself 2

The AP helps make the case; from the Star Tribune:

The New York Times had strongly suggested there was an inappropriate relationship between her husband, John McCain, and a female lobbyist, including favors for her clients.

Of course they did.  The only way to defend the Times would be make the implausible case that they weren't suggesting any such thing, but were only talking about the internal politics of the 2000 McCain campaign, or about other scandals.  A "strong suggestion" about an inappropriate relationship, absent a clear allegation and any evidence at all, is textbook innuendo.  You attack someone's character with a point and a od and a wink, but don't commit yourself to any claim which is logically true or false.    That is journalistic malpractice. 

Unless the Times can come up with some substance to back up its McCain scandal story, the Gray Lady is deep in the brown stuff.  Michael Gerson at the Washington Post has this:

Without the sexual angle of the story, questionable letters from the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee to regulators would not rate the front page of The New York Times. But the sexual angle is unsubstantiated -- no incriminating poems, no torrid diary entries, no spurned and talkative lover. Raising the prominence of a news story with sexual innuendos is irresponsible -- unless there is more proof to come.  ...at this point, it is the Times and not the candidate that should be mortified. If this is all the Times has -- sexual innuendo and anonymous sources -- it really is a scandal.

That kind of criticism, which is almost universal among comments by the press, is bad enough.  The following defense of the Times, by Jack Safer in Slate, is damning:

So far, I've yet to encounter a single critique that faults the article for its portrayal of McCain's eccentric and self-serving ideas about political ethics.

What this means, if you buy it, is that there is a strong case to be made for McCain's hypocrisy and self-serving rhetoric and that this case is contained in the Times article.  If so, then the Times destroyed that case by attaching it to an unsubstantiated allegation that McCain can easily take apart.  That's not just corrupt, it's corrupt and stupid. 

The Arizona Republic calls the situation a stalemate, which might be the dumbest thing said about it yet.  This is, so far, a big win for McCain.  Being attacked by the New York Times is coin of the realm among conservatives.  Being attacked in such a ham-handed fashion is pure gold.  It will help unite conservatives behind him, and may well create sympathy among the larger public.  The fact that ABC is straining hard to suggest that this story will "tarnish McCain's reputation" won't hurt McCain among conservatives either.  If I were a conspiracy minded kind of fellow, I would suspect that those two "former McCain associates" upon whom the Times' story rests are still working for McCain. 

Shaking Hands With Terrorists

Ed Morrissey:  "The Left has a big blind spot when it comes to the history of violence among its radicals in the 1960s. Rather than seeing it for what it was -- political terrorism -- and rejecting it completely, they continue to romanticize its use and rationalize its effects.  Most of the bomb-throwers repented of their actions, but not all -- and two that remain proud of their terrorism may impact the presidential election."  Check out the whole thing.

Up Northern Wolves!

Allow just a little bragging on the home team.  The NSU men's basketball team is now 24-2 and ranked #4 in the nation in the Division II poll.  They are #2 in the region behind the only team to beat them, a great Winona State squad.  Then there is this nugget from Sid Hartman in the Star-Tribune today:

North Dakota State and South Dakota State will be on the 2008-2009 Gophers basketball schedule, with St. Cloud State expected to be an exhibition opponent. Northern State of Aberdeen, S.D., where Don Meyer has built a 24-2 record and No. 4 Division II ranking this season, is also expected to be on the schedule. There will be a four-team round-robin tournament Nov. 13-15 at Williams Arena, but none of the other teams has been scheduled yet.

Beck Blogging

SDWC was on the story this morning, but apparently Argus Leader editor Randall Beck has joined the ranks of the bloggers.  In 2004 he accused blogs of being driven by a "violent" internet "cabal" of "yahoos" who lacked "guts" and hid "behind their computer screens" and wouldn't face him "man to man."  He continued by saying how he saw blogs as places where the views of the "pinheaded" on the "political fringes" with "nutty opinions" could "now spew forth," worsening the "polarized climate" in politics.  Of course, there's the infamous "If Hitler were alive today, he'd have his own blog."  So, Mr. Beck has never been a fan of blogs.  It's good to see he has come to his senses.

We jest because we love.

You Realize Sir, That This Means War

The New York Times hit piece on McCain that Prof. Blanchard and I wrote about just took another amazing twist.  Now that McCain is defending himself, the paper took offense and reacted with unbelievable hysteria:

Later in the day, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers leveled harsh criticism at The New York Times in what appeared to be a deliberate campaign strategy to wage a war with the newspaper. Mr. McCain is deeply distrusted by conservatives on a number of issues, not least because of his rapport with the news media, but he could find common ground with them in attacking a newspaper that many conservatives revile as a left-wing publication.

“It was something that you would see in the National Enquirer, not in The New York Times,” said Steve Schmidt, a former counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney who is now a top campaign adviser to Mr. McCain.

So, the Times publishes a poorly-sourced story more likely to be found on some obscure blog than a mainstream media outlet and now they accuse McCain of declaring war?  Please.  (HT to Powerline)

Love Is A Tender Trap

A presentation I went to with some students tonight sparks the following thoughts.  Young people often ask, "When is the best time to get married?"  Or they say, "I will do this, that and the other thing, and then I will get married."  Yet, as I tell my students, the best time to fall in love is while you're still alive.  Love is a thing that cannot be planned nor something to be turned into a philosophy.  Love is best when it is done, not when it is pondered (although ponder we must). 

We must remember that love is not an emotion to be felt, but a thing to be done.  The word often used for "love" in scripture is the Greek word agape, but that word can be (and sometimes is) translated as charity, which captures the essential gift-giving  element of love.  One does not choose a marriage partner based on how that person makes you feel, although hopefully they make you feel good most of the time.  No, a marriage partner is chosen because that is the person to whom you wish to make a total gift of yourself, just as Christ made a gift of himself to us.  That is one reason why the relationship between Christ and the Church is so often described using the marriage metaphor (e.g., the Church as "bride of Christ"). 

Let me quote the eminently sober Denis De Rougmont:

To choose a woman for a wife is not to say to Miss So and So, "You are the ideal of my dreams, you more than gratify all my desires, you are the Iseult altogether lovely and desirable, of who I want to be the Tristan."  For this would be deceit and nothing enduring can be founded on deceit.  Nobody in the world can gratify me; no sooner would I be gratified than I would change!  To choose a woman for a wife is to say to Miss So and So, "I want to live with you as you are."  For this really means; "It is you I choose to share my life with me, and this is the only evidence there can be that I love you."  If anybody says, "Is that all," and this is no doubt what many young people will say, having been led by virtue of the [romantic] myth to expect goodness knows what divine transports, he must have had little experience in solitariness and dread, and little experience indeed of solitary dread.

New York Times Does the CBS Thing

Every now and then you see a bunch of folks at a once proud institution do this lemming thing: they gather in huddle and then rush straight toward a precipice.  Lots of folk call out in warning as they pass, and they nod politely and point to show that, indeed, they see the precipice.  But in a steady if not always fast stride, they go right off the edge.  CBS did it in 2004.  Now it is the New York Times' turn.

Today the Times ran with this:

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.  Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

Now it is obvious what we are supposed to think here:

1) that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist 30 years his junior (that age thing was a nice touch); and

2) that he compromised his responsibilities as a Senator in order to advance her business interests. 

But notice that the Times does not come close to explicitly saying that; nor do they suggest it or argue for it anywhere in the story. 

Here is what the "story" does amount to: at one point in the 2000 presidential campaign, unnamed members of the McCain organization thought that there might be something going on between their candidate and Ms. Iseman. Because of these suspicions, campaign operatives took steps to keep the two of them away from one another.  We are also told that McCain wrote letters to Federal agencies on behalf of Ms. Iseman and her clients.  That's all there is.  That's the front page story: innuendo based on vague suspicions, eight years cold. 

The obvious question, of course, is whether their suspicion are true, and whether Senator McCain did anything inappropriate on Ms. Iseman's behalf.  Not the slightest evidence is produced that would help the reader answer those questions.  Indeed, they are never raised.  That can only be because Times had nothing more than it produced here, which is to say that it had no story.   

Worse still, the ghost of a story that they do present rests entirely on two anonymous sources, both of whom are acknowledged to be unhappy with McCain.  Their testimony is said to be corroborated by that of "others," but the others are equally anonymous. 

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

Meanwhile, everyone involved who does have a name, including the Senator and Ms. Iseman, deny the story and contradict virtually every element of it.  This does not quite rise to the level of memogate.  There are as yet no forged documents, or typewriter repairmen passed off as handwriting experts.  But it surely comes in for the silver medal.  It is a ridiculously shoddy piece of journalism, and tells anyone who doesn't already know that the Times culture is incompetent and corrupt. 

And like the Dan Rather's last stand, the story has quickly shifted from its intended target to the source itself.  In fact the hit piece on McCain became the focus of an expose before it was even printed.  About two hours after I read the New York Times' piece, I got the New Republic piece about the New York Times' piece by e-mail. 

[W]hat's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady.

The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice.

At one point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.

What happened? The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair.

In other words, the Times had three months to think about this as they strode toward the precipice.  Last night about dinner time, they stepped off it.    

Vox Populi, Vox Dei

One notices this little gem at Badlands Blue, the official mouth piece of the South Dakota Democratic Party.  State Senator Nancy Turbak Berry, in response to the defeat of one of her "open government" bills, opines "Democracy isn't always convenient, but it's always right." 

One understands the spirit in which this quote is offered, and the merits of Sen. Turbak Berry's bills are considerable, but this quote is just daffy.  Was democracy right when it supported slavery?  Was it right when it supported Jim Crow?  How about when it favored prohibition?  The mob is a form of democracy, so are lynch mobs always right?

Of course even BB doesn't believe democracy is always right.  If they do actually think it is always right, we welcome them to the ranks of those who wish to overturn Roe v. Wade and let state legislatures set the abortion code.  But Badlands Blue and the Democratic Party it represents most decidedly do not want democracy to rule when it comes to abortion.  As they think abortion a constitutional right, they wish to place it beyond the majority's reach. 

In Federalist #10, Madison warns us against the dangers of majority faction, i.e., the raw power of democracy.  In Federalist #9, Hamilton discerns the turbulence of ancient democracies:

It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed.

In his famous speech before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, IL, Abraham Lincoln argued for the rule of law as a necessary constraint on the sometimes unjust passions of democracy.

Again, one appreciates the spirit in which Sen. Turbak Berry speaks, which is not with an intention to make any deep statement regarding democratic theory.  But let us be careful not to confuse the voice of the people with the voice of God.   

 

Explaining the Clinton Collapse

I received this well-crafted note, approaching the brilliance of good poetry, in response to my Hopeless in Milwaukee note.  From V.U. in Duluth:

Your reference to the two web links for explanation about how Hillary got into so much trouble, reminds me of the joke about what lawyers use for birth control -- their personalities.  Yes, I mean to suggest the relevance of Occam's razor.

Well, it may be that when the Barber of Occam is done with the phenomenon of Senator Clinton's demise, nothing will be left but the fact that she is not a very likable person.  This what my esteemed Keloland colleague, Todd Epp, thinks.

I am not convinced.  I agree that HRC is just about the last person you would want to be stuck on an elevator with, and I am sure that her personal warmth (wet pajamas on Christmas morning) and her sparkling charm (Al Gore, minus the Fred Astaire-like flexibility) have been serious burdens for her ambitions. 

But Ms. Clinton does have almost as many delegates as Mr. Obama, and she did win New York and California.  The Democratic electorate has been familiar with her personality from years; yet her collapse, if that is indeed what it was, came only in the middle of the campaign.  I think she ran a bad campaign, and that character defects are ultimately to blame.  That, and the fact that she just wasn't up to exploiting all the opportunities that she enjoyed. 

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Wikipedia article will include at least three significant items:  one, that she was responsible for the health care initiative in the beginning of her husband's first term in office; two, that she was elected Senator from New York; three, that she ran for President.  For the second item she deserves some credit, though one has to add that she was playing on her fame as first lady, and the implicit promise of greater things to come.  The first item was a magnificent disaster, leading to the loss of Congress by her party.  As for the third, it looks to be a personal failure of the greatest magnitude.  She might have been the first Woman to win the White House.  That is a big prize to lose.  Granted all the things said above, she chose a campaign manager (Patti Solis Doyle) who was clueless about her job.  Allow me to quote myself, from the American News:

There have been ominous signs of disarray and dysfunction in the Clinton campaign for more than a year. Last summer Joshua Green produced a story about trouble in Hillaryland for GQ magazine. But Bill Clinton was to appear on the cover of GQ's Man of the Year issue. The former president threatened to bail out unless the unfavorable story was withdrawn, and the editor caved. If Green's piece had run as scheduled, Ms. Clinton might have been forced to shake up her organization before the campaign really started, instead of after it suffered a string of defeats. It didn't and she wasn't.

What Green now reports in The Atlantic is that Sen. Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, was obviously incompetent. She had no genius for political strategy. She wasted tens of millions on Sen. Clinton's reelection bid, when there was virtually no opposition. She so badly mismanaged the millions raised for the present campaign that Ms. Clinton was left helpless in the recent string of state contests. She was put in charge of persuading John Kerry to endorse Ms. Clinton. He endorsed Obama.

Solis Doyle firmly backed the decision to delay Ms. Clinton's official entry into the race until after her reelection to the Senate. That allowed Obama to get first crack at the big donors, and that is how the small threat was born. It is only now, when her nomination is in grave peril, that Solis Doyle has been sacked. Why did it take so long? Clinton valued Solis Doyle's perfect loyalty, and her ability to lay down the law against any dissenting voices, over competence. And besides, the senator had persuaded herself that she was entitled to the nomination.

Warts and all, Ms. Clinton might still have won the nomination had she made better choices.  Just right now, it looks like the woman and the moment have not met. 

Winning the West

The Washington Post ran a story this morning entitled "McCain's Rise May Upset Democrats' Western Strategy."  John McCain's unexpected rise has created problems for the Democrats' strategy in the West, where they hoped the Hispanic vote would overwhelm the GOP.  Excerpt:

For Democrats, 2008 was supposed to be the year of the Mountain West, when three years of relentless Republican attacks on undocumented immigrants would fuel a backlash among Hispanics that would change the playing field in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, and perhaps alter the landscape of presidential politics for a generation.

But the emergence of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the likely standard-bearer for the GOP may have scrambled the equation, cooling a potential political revolt among Hispanics and sending Democrats in search of a new playbook.

"It completely screws it up," said Charles Black, a senior McCain adviser. "We nominated the one person who will not suffer that backlash."

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), whose Tucson district is heavily Hispanic, said Democrats should change their tack toward Latinos and emphasize the economy, education and health care before even raising the immigration issue. Perhaps Democrats seeking the Latino vote would be best served challenging McCain on the Iraq war, suggested Guillermo Nicacio, Arizona state coordinator for Mi Familia Vota, an effort to encourage Latinos to apply for citizenship, register and vote.

Even as McCain moves to heal intraparty wounds on the immigration issue, Democratic community organizers in the West say his past battles with other Republicans over a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants left an imprint on the Latino community that will not quickly fade.

The Post reports that one reason the Democrats chose Denver as their convention city was the party felt the Mountain West, with its large Hispanic population, would be up for grabs.  The emergence of John McCain, however, might mean Hispanics are not as inclined to vote against a Republican.  This doesn't necessarily mean McCain will win the Latino vote, but if he can keep the margin small then he may capture much of the southwest. 

Turning to the southern Plains, Amy Chozick in the Wall Street Journal writes "Texas Latino Bloc Not as Clear."  Although Clinton did well among Hispanic voters in California on Super Tuesday, which helped her secure the 2-to-1 margin of victory over Obama, her tactics are less effective in Texas.  For instance, one of Clinton's boosters in the Golden State was the United Farm Workers of America, which represents more than 20,000 Hispanic farm workers.  Texas, on the other hand, is a right-to-work state so the union holds little sway.

There's still plenty of time between now and November to maneuver and formulate new strategies.  However, the West is looking far less friendly to the Democrats than they had anticipated.

The Gray Lady Strikes Again

In tomorrow's edition of the New York Times, the paper takes a swing at John McCain (who, you'll recall, they endorsed) and accuse him of ethics violations, charging he had an affair with a lobbyist.  The story itself seems rather thin on evidence and mostly discusses the Keating Five scandal, which dates back to the late 1980s.  The insinuation that the Times makes is gutter-style politics you'd expect in an opinion piece or blog, not a mainstream media outlet.  The story discusses a friendship with a blond lobbyist that apparently ended in 2000, but the Times offers zero evidence in it's four-page exposé to support what it charges.

This is what we've come to expect from the New York Times -- sandbagging and vague insinuations based on rumors and undisclosed sources.  This is also why most people no longer trust the Times as a serious news source.

The Tinkerbell Candidate

I have been pointing out the various shortcomings of Barack Obama's vision for America (see here and here, for example). Now one of the most sober columnists in America, Robert Samuelson, chimes in.

Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees -- mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees -- shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.

Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscurity. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.

Read the whole thing.

A true statesman leads the people to make tough decisions that are necessary but tough.  Obama hides difficult choices behind a rhetoric of hope.  We are told that if we just believe in hope that we can solve problem with ease.  Much like we can bring Tinkerbell to life if we just say, "I do believe in fairies," Obama asks us to believe that the problems of entitlement spending, terrorism, racial inequalities, education...you name it, can be solved by simply believing in hope and, not coincidently, him.  Tinkerbell is a work of fiction. Perhaps Barack Obama's candidacy is too. 

Who's Laughing Now

I had thought Hillary Clinton still had a decent shot at her party's nomination given the demographics of states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  Clinton had shown strength among union households and the traditional Democratic working class voters.  This is to say nothing about her strength among female voters, who usually make up more than half of all voters who actually turn out.  But as Jay Cost reports today in his analysis of last night's Wisconsin primary Clinton is hemorrhaging votes in these key categories.  Clinton won women voters by 8%, a decrease of 13 percentage points versus previous contests (in other words she had been winning women by an average of 21%).  Meanwhile she actually lost union households by 4%, a decrease of 17 percentage points from her average vote in other primaries and caucuses.   

Should this trend continue, and there is no reason why it shouldn't, Clinton obviously has no hope of gaining the nomination. 

Hopeless in Milwaukee

Professor Schaff and I have, up to now, always added a cautious qualifier to our "Hillary is in trouble" posts.  In my case, it's so I won't look even dumber than usual if Ms. Clinton stages another comeback.  I am still inclined to hedge my bets, but it is getting harder to find grounds for that.  From The Politico:

In a state where half the voters were white women, where only one in ten voters were minorities, and where more than half were from households that made less than $74,999 annually, Wisconsin should have comported with Clinton's strengths. But the exit polls, conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for television networks and the Associated Press, offered scarce news of encouragement for the New York senator.

Once again, and more deeply, Obama cut into every demographic that Hillary was counting on.  He split the White women and the rural vote, and took the suburbs away from Senator Clinton. 

Everyone has been saying that Ms. Clinton desperately needs to win Texas and Ohio.  It looks to me that, even if she does, the best she can hope for is to go into the convention with fewer delegates than Obama and hope the super delegates will save the day.  Just right now I have a hard time seeing that.  As for how Ms. Clinton got into this much trouble, see these two links, one of them a reference to yours truly in the American News.   

1. Ms. Clinton Lost the Nomination on February 6th, Guardian
2. Clinton and the Sins of Princes, American News

 

Reforming Education

As we near the end of our legislative session the discussion about school funding is heating up.  As our local legislators suggested at our Brown County cracker barrel on Saturday, don't get too excited about any particular bill as the funding decisions on education will likely be settled by compromises made in the last minute chaos. 

Yet how important is funding to education? Note that I have argued in these pages for greater education spending and higher teacher salary.  Still, David Brooks has it largely correct:

If there is one thing we have learned over the bitter experience of the past 30 years, it is that per-pupil expenditures and days in the classroom are not sufficient to produce superb information-economy workers. They emerge from intact families, quality neighborhoods and healthy moral cultures.

Brooks is backed up by a chart I posted a couple days ago and will again here (see left).  Compared to forty years ago, we spend about 2.5 times on a per pupil basis, adjusted for inflation.  Does anyone think education is 2.5 times better?  Even in South Dakota we spend over $1000 more per pupil than the national average in the mid-60s.  And yet we are told if we just spend more money things will get better. 

For now I will let pass Brooks' assumption that the purpose of education is to create better producers and consumers, and I do not buy all of Brooks' policy solutions.  Brooks seems to believe that in November we are electing a national superintendent rather than a president.  Be that as it may, he is right that good education policy includes breaking the hold of the educational establishment as enshrined in the teachers unions and schools of education.  The teachers unions oppose any policy change that might actually threaten the public school monopoly or loosen the grip the education bureaucracy has on education.  Schools of education tend to focus on pedagogy at the expense of content, producing, for example, teachers who can't read yet somehow can pass themselves off as "highly qualified." At the same time, schools of education, encouraged by the accrediting bodies, focus on multiculturalism at the expense of core subjects. Or, for example, based on today's standards of teacher certification one can teach high school history without majoring or minoring in history.  Indeed, national wide over 60% of junior and senior high history teachers neither majored nor minored in history. Is it a surprise, then, when students have a hard time figuring out when the War of 1812 took place (I exaggerate slightly). 

Finally, Brooks recognizes that culture has as much, if not more, impact on our success in education than any new government spending:

If all American families looked like the intact middle-class ones, we wouldn’t have nationally low education outcomes. Married men earn 10 percent to 40 percent more than single men with similar skills, and their children are much more likely to graduate from high school. But among the lower-middle class, there is a poisonous spiral of economic stress and cultural decay.

Again, leaving aside that Brooks takes as his measure of educational success whether one is rich or not (and surely there are worse measures), a stable household with two caring parents is the best recipe for educational success.  Public policy and our cultural institutions should encourage strong two parent families.  A home is the one place where children should be able to go and be safe from a world that is antagonistic towards them.  To the extent that the home is simply an extension of that antagonism, no amount of teacher pay can overcome the aggregate effect of that family breakdown.

And a message to Pierre.  The last thing our education system needs is more assessment and more technology. If you really want to improve education in South Dakota allow for charter schools, vouchers, alternative certification of teachers, and work toward having junior and senior high teachers get a four-year degree (major or minor) in an actual subject matter.    Oh, and increase their pay while you're at it. 

 

Michelle Obama Puts Foot in Mouth

In case you haven't heard, Barack Obama's wife made this gaff:

Speaking at a rally in Milwaukee, she said: "Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

That's from the London Telegraph, to give you an idea how big this blew up.  John Podhertz was quick to pounce:

Really proud of her country for the first time? Michelle Obama is 44 years old. She has been an adult since 1982. Can it really be there has not been a moment during that time when she felt proud of her country? Forget matters like the victory in the Cold War; how about only things that have made liberals proud — all the accomplishments of inclusion? How about the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991? Or Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s elevation to the Supreme Court? Or Carol Moseley Braun’s election to the Senate in 1998? How about the merely humanitarian, like this country’s startling generosity to the victims of the tsunami?

...it suggests the Obama campaign really does have its roots in New Class leftism, according to which patriotism is not only the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the first refuge as well — that America is not fundamentally good but flawed, but rather fundamentally flawed and only occasionally good. There’s something for John McCain to work with here.

Now this is an awful lot of interpretation to rest on fifteen words.  Ms. Obama may have really meant what she said, and if so, it would indeed be annoying and politically problematic for the Obama campaign.  I would go so far as to say that it does tell us something about how she really feels.  But it's still just fifteen words, spoken in the heat and thunder of a campaign moment.  If you want to nail the Obama's on a patriotism rap, you need to find something more substantial than that. 

Castro Resigns

From the Washington Post:

MEXICO CITY, Feb. 19 -- Fidel Castro announced early Tuesday morning that he is stepping down as Cuba's president, ending his half-century rule of the island nation.

The announcement ends the formal reign of a man who, after seizing power in a 1959 revolution, not only outlasted nine U.S. presidents but his communist patrons in the former Soviet Union as well. Prior to the Soviet Union's collapse, support from the Kremlin sustained Cuba as a socialist outpost on the doorstep of the United States, and placed Castro and his country in the middle of events central to the Cold War, including the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis.

Those long-standing animosities colored Tuesday's announcement and U.S. reaction to it.

"When You're Wounded And Left On Afghanistan's Plains..."

Apropos Prof. Blanchard's post below, Bill Kristol makes much the same point in this piece, only he uses Kipling as his muse.  He starts is piece by quoting Orwell on Kipling.

He insists that one must admit that Kipling is “morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.” Still, he says, Kipling “survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.” One reason for this is that Kipling “identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.”

“In a gifted writer,” Orwell remarks, “this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.” Kipling “at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.” For, Orwell explains, “The ruling power is always faced with the question, ‘In such and such circumstances, what would you do?’, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.” Furthermore, “where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.”

If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell’s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.

Kristol goes on to argue that the Democrats have been rendered foolish by their lack of responsibility for actually governing.  Thus it is not clear they can be trusted with power. This has manifested itself in the last week in Congress when congressional Democrats have favored pandering to the anti-war base than take the advice of sober leaders who believe the nation needs certain tools to fight international terror. 

It has been said that the nation could benefit by having the Democrats in charge for a while as they would then need to take some "ownership" in the war on terror.  We have seen Democrats in charge in Congress for over a year.  It is an open question whether they have shown themselves worthy of power. 

The Democrats and Europe Hide Behind a Bush

RealClearPolitics directs our attention to this piece in Der Spiegel, an interview with Henry Kissinger. Here is the most interesting exchange:

SPIEGEL: Isn't German and European opposition to a greater military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq also a result of deep distrust of American power?

Kissinger: By this time next year, we will see the beginning of a new administration. We will then discover to what extent the Bush administration was the cause or the alibi for European-American disagreements. Right now, many Europeans hide behind the unpopularity of President Bush. And this administration made several mistakes in the beginning.

SPIEGEL: What do you see as the biggest mistakes?

Kissinger: To go into Iraq with insufficient troops, to disband the Iraqi army, the handling of the relations with allies at the beginning even though not every ally distinguished himself by loyalty. But I do believe that George W. Bush has correctly understood the global challenge we are facing, the threat of radical Islam, and that he has fought that battle with great fortitude. He will be appreciated for that later.

SPIEGEL: In 50 years, historians will treat his legacy more kindly?

Kissinger: That will happen much earlier.

Most of our European allies have left the U.S. to shoulder virtually all the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan.    To be sure, most of Europe has been severely critical of U.S. policy in the former.  In the latter, however, you have a case in which the U.S. was responding to an attack planned and directed from Afghan soil.  If NATO means anything, it means that our allies are obligated to come to our assistance.  They are not meeting their obligations. 

But Kissinger's point is that, regardless of what our policy should have been, or what mistakes were made, a victory for militant Islam in those two countries would be a disaster for the West.  It would be a disaster for world civilization.  The Europeans escape such thoughts by hiding behind their critique of President Bush. 

What Kissinger did not say, but I will, is that the Democratic party is doing the same thing.  What will happen if America withdraws too early, if militant forces come to power in Iraq, and back to power in Afghanistan, if Al Qaeda gets a second victory over America to use as a recruiting tool?  If anyone in the leadership of the party of Jefferson is thinking about such things, they are keeping it a secret. 

If the next president is John McCain, we know that he takes this seriously and can guess that he will do whatever he can to prevent the aforementioned outcomes.  If the next president is Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, she or he will then be forced to confront these questions.  Senator Clinton has been so often all over the board, she will find it easy to switch to whatever policy she has to adopt. 

President Obama, more or less firmly committed to an early withdrawal, will be in a terrible position.  But I am guessing that he too will be compelled to do what is necessary to avoid a disaster.  He will then discover that his favored policy of "talking to people," along with his sexy voice and inspiring rhetoric, won't move the Europeans to take responsibility anymore than did Bush's "arrogance."  It turns out that The Boxer's proverb is reversed in the case of our Middle East policy.  You can surely hide, as the Democrats and the Europeans have done.  But there is nowhere to run.

That's Just Super

This news story has the rundown of how South Dakota's Democratic superdelegates (able to leap high taxes in a single bound) plan on voting.  Of note, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin is conspicuously silent after the exit of her preferred candidate, John Edwards.  One supposes she is waiting to see how things shake out.  It should prove amusing to see her explain her support for Barack Obama should he gain the nomination.  One could wonder how Herseth-Sandlin, who styles herself as a moderate blue dog Democrat, justifies supporting the left-wing populism of John Edwards and perhaps the left-wing populism of Barack Obama.  This while the more moderate John McCain is out there asking for votes.  Here's betting that's a question that doesn't get asked. 

Tyranny Of The Majority?

I have written too much on Barack Obama lately, so let me link without comment to this Joe Knippenberg piece on Obama and the superdelegate controversy.  Note one of Joe's conclusions:

In the end, this spat over the status and views of the Democratic superdelegates is very telling. What it tells me is that a President Obama, with his devoted supporters, would have a hard time resisting the temptation of democratic demagoguery, of acting on behalf of a tyrannical majority. He wouldn’t care much for "original intent" or for institutions that stood in the way of his doing for "the people" what he thought they wanted. He might have the best of intentions. But the price we would pay would be a further devaluation of the currency of small "r" republicanism, whose central features are rights, responsible representation, and a thoughtful concern with the public good (as against public passions).

Or more hopefully, Joe suggests, Obama might just be a typical politician arguing for whatever position gives him political advantage.

"Our Hearts Are Restless Lord..."

Mr. Heidelberger comments on this post of mine regarding Barack Obama and the limits of politics.  Most of Mr. Heibelberger's thoughts refer to this post by Patrick Deneen from which I quoted at length.  Cory argues the following: a) Deneen distrusts all candidates, not just Obama, and b) Deneen seems to argue that we shouldn't try to improve things.  I don't feel particular need to defend Prof. Deneen as he is capable of doing that himself (and judging from the comments on his blog, he may have to), so let me make just a couple points. 

A faithful reader of Patrick Deneen's site will discover that Prof. Deneen is none to enamored with the modern project's dedication to infinite progress, or, as Tocqueville calls it, the indefinite perfectibility of man. Thus he objects to the Left's efforts at using government power to reshape human nature and produce perfect social justice and to the Right's belief that the market can and should solve all problems.  Yes, that means a pox on both houses.  I do not say he is right, just that this is his view in short.  But, it might be noted, John McCain's essential negative deference to the market is an error of a different order (if an error it is) than Barack Obama's faith in his positive power, channeled through government programs, to use politics to give meaning to our lives.  As Augustine writes, "Our hearts are restless, Lord, until they rest in thee."  There is a longing in the human soul for identity and meaning, and that longing can only be filled by City of God, not by the City of Man. 

Here is where perhaps Prof. Deneen claims too much.  If conservatives are to be blamed for anything it is for believing that they can achieve through the market what progressives wish to achieve through scientific management of society; namely infinite progress.  Conservatives also tend to turn a blind eye to the materialism and consumerism of the market, a market that sees human beings as little more than producers and consumers.  But conservatives are also more likely to see the limits of planning and defer more to the prudence of the people.  They allow for the freer reign of the "little platoons" that have proven themselves capable of filling in part the longing for meaning and belonging.   These little platoons tend to rely on the collective wisdom of the people and of tradition to solve problems rather than on scientific planning.  Working from collective wisdom, the little platoons are more likely to have sober expectations and to see the limits of their power.  The social planners, on the other hand, are more likely to become impatient with human nature's limitations on their schemes.  This is the essential error of Marxism: the belief that human nature can be molded to achieve any social goal.  Of course a human nature as malleable as Marx assumed is not really a human nature in any proper sense. 

Obama is in fundamental political and religious error when he argues for achieving the kingdom of heaven on earth.  This goes beyond wanting to "make things better," which surely is most everyone's desire.  Obama's rhetoric suggests a belief in perfectibility unhindered by any notions of a fallen world.   Couple this with a passionate mass political movement and one can see why some might worry that Obama phenomenon has potential for great good and almost equal potential for great harm. 

Condi 2

Intrepid reader BB has this, in reply to my post on Condi Rice as a VP candidate. 

Rice is even less likable than Hillary. Her countenance and glowering stares at the senate hearings made clear that she is the very personification of the "B" word. McCain would be advised to steer clear of any individual so closely associated with the Bush administration and its major failings that Rice is so closely associated with (bin Laden determined to attack in US plus the whole war thing). Thune brings nothing to the table.

I think this comparison is utter nonsense.  We won't know for sure, unless we hear her cackle.  My guess is that women politicians readily bring out the chauvinist in folks on the other side of the isle. People like me loved Maggie Thatcher, but the left was always hurling the worst sort of sexist insults at her. 

I still say Condi Rice would be a very effective running mate. 

Something Flammable in Denmark

This from Reuters, HT to Powerline.

                        COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Gangs of rioters set fire to cars and garbage trucks in northern Copenhagen on Friday, the sixth night of rioting and vandalism that has spread from the capital to other Danish cities, police said on Saturday.

                        

Five youths were arrested in the capital on Friday after 28 cars and 35 garbage trucks were burned, Copenhagen police duty officer Jakob Kristensen told Reuters.

Danish media said arrests in other towns brought to 29 the number of people police were holding.

Scores of cars and several schools have been vandalized or burned in the past week. Police could give no reason, but said that unusually mild weather and the closure of schools for a winter break might have contributed.

Police arrested two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent on Tuesday for planning to kill a cartoonist who drew one of the cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper two years ago that roused a storm of protest in Muslim countries.

Fifteen Danish newspapers reprinted his drawing on Wednesday in protest against the alleged murder plot.

"Before All Else, Be Armed"

The state of the world can turn in an instant.  Just today Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia, once again throwing the Balkans into turmoil.  The United States seems prepared to recognize the new government. At a press conference in Africa, when asked about this issue Pres. Bush simply referred to the Ahtisaari plan.  You can find the basics of that plan here.  It apparently includes recognition of Kosovar independence.  This pits the United States squarely against the pro-Serbian Russians who are none too happy with this move by Kosovo. 

While posing no immediate danger to the United States, these events illustrate once again that we live in a turbulent  world were one can only predict unpredictability.  When we look at our presidential election, then, in addition to looking at how candidates stand on this or that issue, the prudent voter looks also at overall temperament and judgment.  John McCain seems a bit impulsive, but he also seems to have a firm grasp on the realities of a dangerous would.  Barack Obama, on the other hand, seems a more sober man, but is plagued by a Carteresque (and Clintonesque) naiveté towards the world which holds that good intentions and a charming personality are enough to further American interests and world peace. 

Obama's judgment should be further questioned given his vote this week to encourage cooperation by telecommunications companies with our intelligence agencies in gathering intelligence on foreign terrorists.  I will quote Andrew McCarthy in whole:

It is worth observing that the Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, was the Director of President Clinton's National Security Agency from 1992-'96.  He is not a partisan hack.  He was a Vice Admiral in the Navy and is an old intelligence pro.

On Fox News Sunday this morning, McConnell explained that President Bush has been following his (McConnell's advice) on intelligence reform.  As of midnight this morning, intelligence gathering powers are now back to where they were before the Protect America Act was passed in August 2007.  At that time, according to McConnell, we had lost about two-thirds of our overseas collection capacity because of the FISA court ruling which, for the first time in history, required court authorization for monitoring foreigners outside the U.S. who contact other foreigners outside the U.S.

The Protect America Act reversed that ruling for six months.  It is now expired.  We cannot collect on new targets overseas without going to the FISA court and showing probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power. As foreigners outside the U.S. have no U.S. legal protection (or at least didn't until the FISA court ruling), and as the federal courts have no jurisdiction outside the U.S., we are not supposed to have to make any showing whatsoever to collect intelligence overseas.

When you go from no restrictions to no collection absent probable cause, that represents an enormous drop off in capacity.  It's that simple. Democrats who claim that people like McConnell are engaged in partisan fear-mongering are talking nonsense.  And as McConnell noted this morning, every day we don't fix this problem, the problem — the investigative leads you don't get, the connections you don't make, the things you don't learn but which you should know — metastasizes. Intelligence is dynamic:  you can't stop collecting for a day, a week, a month or more and then figure you are picking up right where you left off.  What you have lost tends to stay lost.