I'm not Partisan, I'm Opinionated

The folks over at Tapped (weblog of the American Prospect) make an excellent point about the difference between being a partisan and having an opinion. They are very seperate entities. To boot:

Can we get something straight here? There is a difference in kind between "partisan" and "opinionated." In fact, in a political context, these words often mean the opposite. True political partisans say whatever is best for their party. They don't have any opinions of their own, merely a line of the day. A journalist with an opinion is, one hopes, someone who has gathered enough facts to come to a conclusion about whatever it is they're writing about. You can be opinionated without being a partisan, and you can be partisan without being opinionated. (Nor is partisanship proportional to ideological fervor: You can be highly partisan as well as centrist, as Tom Daschle was, or highly conservative and also bipartisan, as John McCain is. Why is this so hard to understand?)

I try my best to be opinionated, not partisan. To be clear, my opinions tend to lean Liberal. Does that make me partisan? I don't think so, because I evaluate issues independent of what the Democrats say on the matter. If you don't think that's true, then you can think I'm a partisan. That's fine. All I'm saying is that I do my best to be as non-partisan as I can, and call the issues as I see them. And all I expect of my colleagues in the blogosphere is that they do the same.

This issue is important to me, because I think it aptly synthesizes a couple of very core beliefs I hold. When one has opinions, rather than blind faith in a party, it makes for a stronger Democracy. The tendancy of people to substitute party affiliation in place of actually thinking about and discussing issues of importance to our nation is extraordinarily damaging to democracy as a whole. At the same time, the people can't take all the blame. Partisan politicians are every bit as bad, in fact they're worse, because they feed the cycle and actively prevent the nation from breaking out of its hyperpolarized mindset. Hence the anger bordering on rage I feel towards Tom DeLay and his ilk. People like him are ruining the country. I pray for a day when we have more McCains and Liebermans in office, and the DeLays and Roves and Moores of the world are off writing wingnut blogs like they should be. But the key point is that one can still hold deep, abiding, sincere convictions, and fight for those convictions, without turning into a reckless partisan. John McCain is a perfect example. Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama are others. These men are models that the rest of us should hold ourselves up to, and I think it's in keeping with the ethical standard I hold myself to as well.

Odds and Ends, and a Slice of Optimism

First off, I'm going to judging at the Apple Valley debate tournament this weekend. So no blogging from Friday till Monday. I probably could use the break. And listening to dozens of high schoolers talk and argue intelligently about democracy promotion is real break from election watching (the sad thing is, I'm serious. It's been awhile since I've been able to see anything substantive on the topic).

Now, some more post-election thoughts, responding to the commenters on the last post. A lot of people argued that democrats were in trouble with "value voters," IE the famous "God, Guns, and Gays" crowd. They're absolutely right. As Noam Schieber reminds us, the Conservative vote came out in force this election, with 34% of the electorate describing itself as Conservative (compared to 29% in 2000). That's a huge shift. What's more, according to polling the most important issue for voters this election wasn't Iraq, or the Economy, or Terrorism. It was "Moral Values" (edging out "economy" 22-20). To paraphrase Andrew Sullivan: For Bush's base, it wasn't about the war on terror. It was about the war on gay unions.

All of this, I think, only reaffirms my point though. The "moral values" issues probably have the least substantive discussion of any major campaign issue. You never see a real debate about gay marriage or abortion. Republicans just say "GAY PEOPLE!" and voters run screaming to the polls, while Democrats just try and play damage control. In other words, 1) Bush won due to 2) "values-voters" who 3) are voting off issues that get no discussion beyond bumpersticker platitudes. Style 1, Substance 0.

So to win, the Democrats either have to shift the ground of debate onto areas where they have stronger platitudes, or they need to push the debate beyond cute sound bites. Not only do I find the former morally abhorrent, but I think that it won't work. Abortion and gay marriage are important concerns for many people, and Democratic efforts to ignore them are likely to backfire. And yet, the latter option is a paradox. As former guestblogger Greg Ihrie points out, the mainstream media presents an irreconcilable obstacle to these goals. I think that, in the long term, blogs may counter the influence of the MSM. But what are to do in the short run, when it appears that voters care more about isolating gays and lesbians than annihilating Al-Qaeda? At times it seems we need a silver bullet.

And yet, hope remains. Today, polarization has divided America into Republican and Democrat. Politicians get votes by appealing to the worst in voters. We face grave threats abroad, and yet we fight amongst ourselves at home. Honest disagreement is presented as betrayal, the slightest hint of bipartisanship is seen as traitorous. I do not argue that Americans must ignore legitimate grievances. The solution to partisan vitriol is more speech, not enforced silence. The politics of deceit and deception; bigotry and apathy; prejudice, fear, hate, and anger, can only win out for so long. In the long run, justice will reign in this great land. In place of fear, we can offer hope. In place of bigotry, we can offer brotherhood. In place of partisanship, unity, in place of factions, community, in place of lies, honesty. The legions of justice stand battered but not broken. There is a better way out there, and it is up to us to seize the initiative. And when the gauntlet is thrown down, we will meet the forces of wrong, fight them, beat them, and stand victorious in a stronger, safer, more just America. In cities and in towns, villages and in hamlets, in farms and in apartments, from young to old,Democrat to Republican, Christian to Jew to Muslim to Atheist, black or white, rich or poor, gay or straight, north, south, east, west and all over this great land, we will not be silenced, we will not be quiet, we will not equivocate, and most of all we will not be ignored.

There is hope yet for America. It is a hope based on what binds this nation together as one. The principles of liberty for all, justice for all, equality for all, are what unite this country together as the greatest country in the world. Barack Obama said it best: "The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." And I believe that, whether or not the standard bearer is a Republican or Democrat, a Liberal, Conservative, or Independent, the day of reckoning draws upon us. The era of hate is over. The American people will not let their government, their churches, their synagogues and their mosques be hijacked in the name of exclusion and bigotry. The party of Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, who desegregated the schools, and of Anthony Kennedy, who affirmed that yes, Gay people too are full and equal Americans, cannot be allowed to become the party of Jerry Falwell, Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson and others who wish for a divided, infighting, spiteful America. There is too much at stake for that, and Republicans and Democrats of wisdom and moderation must reach out and fight back the forces of intolerance that threaten to overcome our nation. We will prevail, because we must prevail.

In the coming four years, I hope that Americans can work together, Republican and Democrat, across party lines, for the good of the country we all love so much. I pledge my support to any politician, no matter the party, who will stand beside me and work with me in the pursuit of justice. We owe it to our parents, we owe it to our children, we owe it to our country, to make America all that it can be. Much has been accomplished, but much remains to be done. The hope of America lies in the hands of the millions of American citizens who remain committed to our founding ideals, the ideals that shine as a beacon of hope to oppressed peoples around the world. And so, now more than ever, God Bless the world, God Bless the Democrats, God Bless the Republicans, and God Bless America!

Post-Mortum

I'm going to write as honestly as I can in this post. Since we're in the immediate aftermath of a bitterly fought election, it may come off a bit raw. All I can say is that I hope I've purchased enough moderate credibilty that you can all indulge me for awhile. And since it seems only Republicans read my blog, please no mocking. I'd do the same for you. Here are my thoughts on how this election will impact everybody:

Republicans
Well, my forecast of an impending GOP civil war has been forestalled, at least for now. In the long run, I think my prediction still holds true: The GOP's mismatched coalition simply can't last much longer. But election day victories work wonders for keeping status quo alliances intact.

The real question is how Bush will govern in his second term. Part of me wants to think he'll be a bit more sensible, in part because it would be hard not to, and in part because without the need to win another election, there isn't any reason to keep playing the pander game. But a much greater part of me is pessimistic, since without an impending election to keep him honest, there is nothing pushing Bush to the center. It seems unlikely that Bush would have risked so much in polarizing America by governing from the right, if he would have been content to be a centrist. Furthermore, even more than 2000 or 2002, this election has given Bush a semi-solid mandate to continue his policies. This shouldn't be taken as a vindication of these policies, the relevant morality or advisibility of any given action exists independent of its electoral popularity. But Bush and the Republicans will almost certainly use this election as an excuse to make even more radical changes in our society. This is their right, and I don't contest it. But I don't have to be happy about it either.

Democrats
An unmitigated disaster. We lost key senate races. We lost key house races. We lost the presidency. Right now, Democratic activists are so hung up on the idea of four more years of Bush I think that they haven't even noticed just how bad of a shape we're in. I think the prevailing mood amongst Democrats was that the worst-case scenario for us was that we'd maintain the status quo: IE, Bush would still be president, and the house and senate would stay in approximately the same margins as they were before. But it looks like we're going to be worse all the way around.

Not only that, but this whole election is devastating to Democratic morale. In 2000, we had righteous anger driving us after Florida. We kind of lost a step after 9/11, and got nailed in 2002. But I think everyone thought that the Democratic machine was going to make a roaring return as a relevant player in the political process. We threw everything we had into this election, and we still lost. Whereas we had that drive and determination after 2000, all I see now is despair and hopelessness in the eyes of the Democrats around here. The electoral map is slanted against us, our best turnout efforts failed to win contested races, and in many cases 2004 was our only chance to win these races (does anyone think the Oklahoma Senate spot will be competitive again anytime in the next, oh, 35 years?). This is really, really bad.

Democracy
Here's where I start to descend a bit, I think. First, let me say that for all appearances this election was reasonably fair. Sure, there were scattered reports of random this and that around, but on a whole, it does not look like there will be any Florida repeats. That's a positive by any measure.

I will say that I am extremely disillusioned at the moment. To gather why this is, allow me to share an anecdote. When I was in elementary school, we had elections each year for our school president, VP, secretary, treasurer, and class reps. And every year the principal would get on the intercom and remind us that "we should vote for who we thought would do the best job, not just your friends." And we'd all kind of chuckle, because we knew that everyone just voted for their friends and no one gave the slightest thought to who would do a better job. But I thought, and I think we all thought, that this was because we were kids, and when we were grownup then we would look at the candidates seriously and make decisions based on issues and hard analysis.

Fast forward to 2000. In 2000, I was still a hyperliberal, not the center-leftist I consider myself now. I watched an election race where the biggest issue was that Gore was "too brainy" and Bush was "folksy" and "an average Joe." I was totally in shock. What the hell did "folksiness" have to do with Presidential qualification? Why was being smart considered a disadvantage, of all things? It was like the voters were all 10 years old again. In the first presidential race I followed carefully, I was dismayed to see virtually no attention paid to issues of substance, and hours upon hours of coverage dedicated to Gore's sighing or Bush's malapropisms. Why did I bother to inform myself on the issues, if issues were irrelevant to the process? It just didn't make sense to me.

Moving again to 2004. Towards the end of the election, I formulated a theory that matched my new centrist perspective. I argued to my friends that the majority of Americans weren't polarized archenemies. Rather, we had alot of disillusioned moderates angry that both parties appear to make decisions based solely on political concerns. The particular voting tendancies of these moderates was based around which party better dealt with their "pet issues," but as a whole, they were unhappy campers who wanted to see a third way. In light of this election, I revise that theory to incorporate my thoughts in 2000. The majority of Americans consider themselves moderates, but they aren't concerned with issues. They care about style. They want a candidate who matches their style, who makes them feel good. What did Clinton and Reagan have in common? They both made Americans feel good about themselves again. Now, when things are going well, this is an asset. But in times of trouble, it creates a disturbing catch-22, where incumbants are encouraged to pretend that problems don't exist so that voters feel good about themselves, and stick with status quo. I understand the electoral reasons for this, but the point is its bad for the country. It's dangerous, and while some electioneering may be tolerable when we're just talking about pushing numbers around the budget, when we're fighting a war, when American lives are at stake, its simply not acceptable anymore to subordinate principle to politics.

If I'm a politician gathering lessons from this election (and the last), here's what I learn:
1) Style is 80%, substance 20%
2) The 20% substance should pander only to the base, since they're the only ones paying attention to the issues anyway.

What does this give us? A political system that encourages and rewards personal sliming, politics of demagogery, and substantive extremism. That frightens me. What frightens me more is that I don't see a way to counteract it. It might very well be inherent to democracy. This election saw an unprecedented effort toward the politics of personal destruction, but it also gave voters more resources on which to learn about issues than ever before. From the blogosphere to Factcheck.org, the ability to learn about the world around us and the truth about political issues reached incredible heights. Groups went crazy trying to get out the vote, from ACT to Vote or Die. None this seemed to do anything. There is almost a willful resistance to anything that threatens America's well-entrenched ignorance. And I don't see anyway to stop it.

Before I get jumped on, I'm not denying it's possible to support Bush from a policy standpoint. It certainly is, and I'm sure there are plenty of principled, informed Bush supporters who weighed the facts and decided Bush was their man. All power to them. However, I think that it is indisputable that what put Bush over the top was not an agreement with his policies but an appreciation of his style. Americans want to put on a tough face against terror. We are resolved to win this war, and we want a leader who is an embodiement of that resolve. Noble qualities, for sure. But not substantive differences by any stretch. That's what I mean when I say these elections are decided on style. And no matter how many times Kerry says he's going to be resolved, and determined, when people get it in their heads that he's a weak-kneed flipflopper, they are going to be very reluctant to change that.

In my last post before the election, I made a pledge to support the president, even if I didn't vote for him. That pledge still holds. I wish President Bush the best, and hope he can lead America to a better tommorow. I don't know if there is any way to restore substance to politics. But I do pledge that my little corner of the political world will remain dedicated to intelligent, rational, and objective discussion of the issues, regardless of political origin. That is all I have to offer to America.

Post Election Pledge

I'll take this pledge* from Buzz Machine:

After the election results are in, I promise to:
: Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him.
: Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him.
: Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better.
: Unite as a nation, putting country over party, even as we work together to make America better.

*Nothing in this pledge shall be construed to require me to support an unfair tallying of the votes. The Debate Link reserves the right to support post-election litigation to make sure all the votes are counted, pursuant to the democratic ideals that make our nation great. All rights reserved. Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.

Final Election Prediction

UPDATE: 11/1 @ 7:00. West Virginia was a typo, I think Bush will win it (the electoral vote tally was right originally)
From now until we find out who our next President is (IE, sometime in December), I'll be having a slow, progressive heart attack. Before I succumb to immobility and the fetal position, here are my electoral predictions.

POPULAR VOTE: Kerry by less than 1%, +/- 1% (IE, it will be very close in either direction).

WHITHER THE STATES?
Alabama: Bush
Alaska: Bush
Arizona: Bush
Arkansas: Bush
California: Kerry
Colorado: Bush
Connecticut: Kerry
Delaware: Kerry
District of Columbia: Kerry
Florida: Kerry
Georgia: Bush
Hawaii: Kerry
Idaho: Bush
Illinois: Kerry
Indiana: Bush
Iowa: Kerry
Kansas: Bush
Kentucky: Bush
Louisiana: Bush
Maine: Kerry
Maryland: Kerry
Massachusetts: Kerry
Michigan: Kerry
Minnesota: Kerry
Mississippi: Bush
Missouri: Bush
Montana: Bush
Nebraska: Bush
Nevada: Bush
New Hampshire: Kerry
New Jersey: Kerry
New Mexico: Bush
New York: Kerry
North Carolina: Bush
North Dakota: Bush
Ohio: Kerry
Oklahoma: Bush
Oregon: Kerry
Pennsylvania: Kerry
Rhode Island: Kerry
South Carolina: Bush
South Dakota: Bush
Tennessee: Bush
Texas: Bush
Utah: Bush
Vermont: Kerry
Virginia: Bush
Washington: Kerry
West Virginia: Bush
Wisconsin: Kerry
Wyoming: Bush
FINAL TALLY: KERRY 306, BUSH 232

Keeping the fingers crossed...ackkk, my heart!

Freefall

UPDATE: 10/31 @ 9:25 PM

Things just aren't working for us in Iraq. Newsweek reports (tip off: Kevin Drum) that we're in an even worse situation than has hither to been acknowledged. Quote:

"But the truth is, neither party is fully reckoning with the reality of Iraq—which is that the insurgents, by most accounts, are winning. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former general who stays in touch with the Joint Chiefs, has acknowledged this privately to friends in recent weeks, NEWSWEEK has learned. The insurgents have effectively created a reign of terror throughout the country, killing thousands, driving Iraqi elites and technocrats into exile and scaring foreigners out. 'Things are getting really bad,' a senior Iraqi official in interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government told NEWSWEEK last week. 'The initiative is in [the insurgents'] hands right now. This approach of being lenient and accommodating has really backfired. They see this as weakness.'
...
Washington has declared several times that the insurgency would soon be defeated or at least mostly neutralized. Senior officials made such statements when electricity was restored to its pre-occupation levels in 2003, when Saddam was captured in December, when sovereignty was handed over on June 28. Each time the insurgency has only grown. Now even military officials who are hopeful the insurgency can be defeated—or perhaps just reduced to a violent annoyance—say it will be a long haul no matter who is U.S. president.

We've got a mess on our hands, no doubt about it. And yet, inexplicably, some trust the man who caused the mess to get us out of it. Presumably, if Bush had a plan to fix Iraq, we'd have seen it by now. That Iraq is still mired in an insurgency, indeed, that the insurgency has only grown as time has passed, is a powerful indictment against the Bush administration.

UPDATE: Daniel Drezner also runs with this issue for awhile. Specifically, he uses it to utterly dismantle the Chicago Boyz's (by way of Instapundit) claim that Bush has done a great job on this war. They write:

Now the one thing that strikes me about the military efforts to date is just how incredibly successful they've been, and how masterfully planned and executed they turned out to be. Not perfect, of course (You mean there's terrorists setting off explosives? Against Americans and their supporters? In the Middle East, no less? Say it isn't so!). But a lot of the toys that John Kerry voted against turned out to be damned useful in the War on Terror. I don't want to even think about how an Afghanistan operation with Vietnam-era technology and tactics would have gone for us - I think in that case we'd have been wishing for another Vietnam. And if you've ever cracked a history book, you'll realize that only 1200 deaths in a year and a half of invading a dictatorship, overthrowing its dictator, and fighting a chronic insurgency is astoundingly good news, especially when added to the fact that the long-predicted flood of refugees never materialized, the terrorists that Saddam's regime had nothing whatsoever to do with suddenly got extremely interested in the fate of Iraq . . . and Iraqis are still signing up to take on the battle for their country against these thugs and getting set to vote in their first-ever real election in a couple of months.

And the Commander-in-Chief at the helm during these amazing accomplishments is called incompetent? You've got to be kidding me.

Drezner notes that

"There is one point in this narrative on which I absolutely agree -- the observable costs of the insurgency in Iraq, measured in either men or material, is nowhere near the cost of what transpired in Vietnam. We're talking about differences by several orders of magnitude.

There is, of course, the question of unobservable costs -- and read Ambassador Peter Galbraith's disturbing account in the Boston Globe on that issue.

More importantly, there is the question of trend -- are things betting better or worse in Iraq over time? And here's where I part company with the above narrative."

He then quotes from the above Newsweek article to illustrate this point. The point that I think is relevant here is this. Whether or not Bush has done a good, or even remotely competent job of fighting this war goes beyond simple body counts. Whether or not we are "succeeding" in Iraq is a direct function of how likely it is that country is going to end up as a stable, functional democracy. If it becomes a new haven for terrrorists, then we are losing even if we don't incur a single new casualty. If it replaces its old dictator with a new dictator, we've failed even if we don't incur a single new casualty. The proper measure of Bush's policies in post-war Iraq is whether or not they've been facilitative of our goals for the region: Democratization and Anti-terrorism. The fact is, they haven't been. They haven't been because our hubris has turned the local population against us. They haven't because our spurning of offered international assistance has reinforced the perception that this is an imperial mission. They haven't because the interim government loses credibilty every time it identifies itself with the US. They haven't because increasingly, democrats in the region like Ayatollah Ali Sistani are viewing the US as an obstacle, rather than an aid, to democracy. They haven't because the situation in Iraq has deteriorated to the point where the National Intelligence Estimate foresees a reasonable chance that the country will fall into civil war. All of these issues are problems for which the Bush administration can, and must, be held culpable for.

A Few Good Men

The story of the Ohio GOP's attempt to disenfranchise legal voters with virtually no proof that there was anything wrong with their registration has been kicked around the blogosphere for awhile now. I wouldn't post simply to add my voice to the chorus of responsible bloggers expressing their disgust at the Republican's hideous tactics (though I do agree they are hideous). I'd just like to note the actions of a few good Republican men who resisted their party's eviler impulses and stood up for democracy.

When Catherine Herold received mail from the Ohio Republican Party earlier this year, she refused it.

The longtime Barberton Democrat wanted no part of the mailing and figured that by refusing it, the GOP would have to pay the return postage.

What she didn't count on was the returned mail being used to challenge the validity of her voter registration.

Herold,who is assistant to the senior vice president and provost at the University of Akron,was one of 976 Summit County voters whose registrations were challenged last week by local Republicans on behalf of the state party.

She went to the Board of Elections on Thursday morning to defend her right to vote and found herself among an angry mob -- people who had to take time off work to defend their right to vote.

After hearing some of the protests, the board voted unanimously to dismiss all 976 challenges.

The move, ironically, came from Republican board member Joseph Hutchinson and was seconded by Republican Alex Arshinkoff after they determined that the four local Republicans who made the challenges had no evidence to back up their claims.
...
Arshinkoff, chairman of the Summit County GOP, pointed to the state party and said Chairman Robert Bennett should be held accountable.
...
Pry and elections board member Wayne Jones said after the hearing that they intend to contact the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the challenges.

"You don't mess with somebody's right to vote," Jones said. He believes the effort to challenge legitimate voters is proof that Republicans are running scared in Ohio.

Arshinkoff and Hutchinson were obviously angry with the state party.

Arshinkoff compared the proceedings to a "train wreck" and said representatives from the Ohio Republican Party should have been at the hearing to defend the lists of challenges that it prepared.

Kudos to these brave board members, especially Mr. Arshinkoff, who, as the chairman of the county GOP, probably will face an enormous backlash from party bigwigs for his courage and commitment to justice.

Just when you think nobody cares about fairness and democracy anymore, something like this shows up. My profound thanks to all the members of the board who stood up for America, and the voters who refused to stand idly by and watch their voices be suppressed.

And for the record, I do hope the Republican hacks who brought the challanges are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Syrians using Chemical Weapons in Darfur?

The Channel News reports that Syria might have tested chemical weapons on Darfur refugees in agreement with the Sudanese government (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan).

"According to [The German Newspaper] Die Welt, the Syrians had suggested close cooperation on developing chemical weapons, and it was proposed that the arms be tested on the rebel SPLA, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, in the south.

But given that the rebels were involved in peace talks, the newspaper continued, the Sudanese government proposed testing the arms on people in Darfur."

The article claims that "injuries apparently caused by chemical arms were found on the bodies of the victims." So far, the mainstream media hasn't picked this up, and I have no idea how much credibility the story has. But if it's true, it provides a deadly accent to the need for immediate US and global intervention in Darfur.

Economist Goes for Kerry

The Economist magazine, which endorsed Bush in 2000 and Dole in 1996, has announced "with a heavy heart" that it is endorsing John Kerry for the United States Presidency. On President Bush, they write:

"Invading Iraq was not a mistake. Although the intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction has been shown to have been flimsy and, with hindsight, wrong, Saddam's record of deception in the 12 years since the first Gulf war meant that it was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt. The containment scheme deployed around him was unsustainable and politically damaging: military bases in holy Saudi Arabia, sanctions that impoverished and even killed Iraqis and would have collapsed. But changing the regime so incompetently was a huge mistake. By having far too few soldiers to provide security and by failing to pay Saddam's remnant army, a task that was always going to be long and hard has been made much, much harder. Such incompetence is no mere detail: thousands of Iraqis have died as a result and hundreds of American soldiers. The eventual success of the mission, while still possible, has been put in unnecessary jeopardy. So has America's reputation in the Islamic world, both for effectiveness and for moral probity.

If Mr Bush had meanwhile been making progress elsewhere in the Middle East, such mistakes might have been neutralised. But he hasn't. Israel and Palestine remain in their bitter conflict, with America readily accusable of bias. In Iran the conservatives have become stronger and the country has moved closer to making nuclear weapons. Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia have not turned hostile, but neither have they been terribly supportive nor reform-minded. Libya's renunciation of WMD is the sole clear piece of progress.

This only makes the longer-term project more important, not less. To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything: even after Abu Ghraib, when he had a perfect opportunity to dismiss Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and declare a new start, he chose not to. Instead, he treated the abuses as if they were a low-level, disciplinary issue. Can he learn from mistakes? The current approach in Iraq, of training Iraqi security forces and preparing for elections to establish an Iraqi government with popular support, certainly represents an improvement, although America still has too few troops. And no one knows, for example, whether Mr Rumsfeld will stay in his job, or go. In the end, one can do no more than guess about whether in a second term Mr Bush would prove more competent."

They aren't particularly enamored of Senator Kerry though, especially on Foreign Policy issues. They note:

"If the test is a domestic one, especially an economic crisis, Mr Kerry looks acceptable, however. His record and instincts are as a fiscal conservative, suggesting that he would rightly see future federal budget deficits as a threat. His circle of advisers includes the admirable Robert Rubin, formerly Mr Clinton's treasury secretary. His only big spending plan, on health care, would probably be killed by a Republican Congress. On trade, his position is more debatable: while an avowed free trader with a voting record in the Senate to confirm it, he has flirted with attacks on outsourcing this year and chosen a rank protectionist as his running-mate. He has not yet shown Mr Clinton's talent for advocacy on this issue, or any willingness to confront his rather protectionist party. Still, on social policy, Mr Kerry has a clear advantage: unlike Mr Bush he is not in hock to the Christian right. That will make him a more tolerant, less divisive figure on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research.

The biggest questions, though, must be about foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. That is where his oscillations are most unsettling. A war that he voted to authorise, and earlier this year claimed to support, he now describes as “a mistake”. On some occasions he claims to have been profoundly changed by September 11th and to be determined to seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they are hiding, and on others he has seemed to hark back to the old Clintonian view of terrorism as chiefly a question of law and order. He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush's targets of democracy, human rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies."

In the end, though, the Economist concludes that "[A]s Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks." Couldn't have put it better myself.

DeLay gets Desperate

Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay is suddenly realizing he's in trouble in his race for re-election in Texas' 22nd District. The Houston Chronicle has endorsed his opponent, Richard Morrison, as has the Brazoria Facts, another district paper.

Meanwhile, Delay's ethical problems continue to haunt him. The Austin American-Statesman reports:

"A Travis County grand jury on Tuesday indicted three top lieutenants of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in connection with corporate money raised during the 2002 elections.

Indicted on one count of money laundering were John Colyandro, the executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, and Jim Ellis, a former DeLay staff member now head of Americans for a Republican Majority, DeLay's national fund-raising political action committee.

Colyandro also was indicted on 14 counts of unlawful acceptance of a corporate political contribution.

Warren Robold, DeLay's corporate fund-raiser, based in Washington, D.C., was indicted on 18 counts; nine of unlawful political contribution by a corporation and nine of accepting those contributions.

The money-laundering counts are first-degree felonies, punishable by up to life in prison; the rest are third-degree felonies, with a maximum sentence of 10 years.

Seven corporate donors and an alliance of nursing-home companies also were indicted."

DeLay's defense attorney reacted strongly, saying, "All these people felt comfortable they were not violating the laws," he said. "We don't believe anyone intentionally violated the law." Wait, that's not strong. That's pretty weak actually.

In the face of all this, DeLay is getting desperate. In a move bordering on libel, he lashed out at some of the groups opposing his re-election:

Morrison also has taken money and is working with the Daily Kos, which is an organization that raises money for fighters against the U.S. in Iraq.

The Daily Kos may be a partisan democratic group, but I have no idea where DeLay gets the idea that it is raising money for the insurgency. Unless, of course, raising money for Democrats is the same thing as supporting our enemies, which is allegation that the ethically bankrupt DeLay has made in the past.

Those of you who know me, or read this blog, know I dislike George W. Bush. But that dislike compares to the absolute antipathy I feel towards Rep. DeLay. The man is a cancer on Washington, a physical manifestation of all that is evil and wrong in American politics. He knows no principles, only power. He has no ethics, only limits. He can and must be taken out of office, if only so that his shameful presence does not embarrass the House of Representatives any longer. If he went to prison too, well, that would just be an added bonus.

Andrew Sullivan Climbs Aboard

Last week I claimed that while Daniel Drezner's Kerry endorsement should spell the end of the election, in all practical effect it would push Andrew Sullivan toward our side. And lo and behold, he has now announced his (very unhappy) endorsement of John Kerry. Unlike Drezner's endorsement, which was somewhat reserved, Sullivan seems to be phenomonally distressed by both candidates. He writes on Kerry:

I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government's job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign's constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man's record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point--about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good.

Sullivan also sings praises of Bush, at least early in his term. So why is voting for Kerry? The title says it all: Risk Management. The risks of a Kerry presidency (inaction, indecisiveness) are far less dangerous in the world we're facing than Bush's (hubris, arrogance). He argues:

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration has shown itself impatient with and untalented at nation-building. Moreover, the toll of the war has left the United States with minimal international support, one important ingredient for the successful rebuilding of nations. If Bush is reelected, even Britain will likely shift toward withdrawal in Iraq, compounding American isolation there and making it even harder for a new Iraqi government to gain legitimacy. In the essential tasks of building support for greater international help in Iraq--financially, militarily, diplomatically--Kerry is the better choice. No, other countries cannot bail us out or even contribute much in the way of an effective military presence. But within Iraq, the impact of a more international stamp on the occupation and on the elections could help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis. That battle--as much as the one on the battlefield itself--is crucial for success. I fear Bush is too polarizing, too controversial, too loathed a figure even within his own country, to pull this off.

The president says that he alone can act militarily when the danger is there; and Kerry is too weak for our current crisis. I disagree. The chance of a third forced regime change somewhere in the world in the next four years is extremely low. We don't even have the troops. Bush's comparative advantage--the ability to pull the trigger when others might balk--will be largely irrelevant. That doesn't mean it hasn't come in handy. Without Bush, Saddam would still be in power. But just because the president was suited to fight the war for the last four years doesn't mean he is suited to succeed at the more complicated and nuanced tasks of the next four. In fact, some of the very virtues that made him suited to our past needs now make him all the more unsuited to our future ones. I am still glad he was president when we were attacked. But that doesn't mean he's the right leader for the years ahead. And one of the great benefits of being a democracy at war is that we can change leaders and tactics to advance the same goals. Dictatorships are stuck with the same guy--with all his weaknesses and all the hubris that comes from running successful wars, hubris that almost always leads to fatal errors, hubris that isn't restricted to tyrants.

Does Kerry believe in this war? Skeptics say he doesn't. They don't believe he has understood the significance of September 11. They rightly point to the antiwar and anti-Western attitudes of some in his base--the Michael Moores and Noam Chomskys who will celebrate a Kerry victory. I understand their worries. But they should listen to what Kerry has said. The convention was a remarkable event in that it pivoted the Democratic Party toward an uncomplicated embrace of the war on terror. Kerry has said again and again that he will not hesitate to defend this country and go on the offensive against Al Qaeda. I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. What is there to gain from failure in this task? He knows that if he lets his guard down and if terrorists strike or succeed anywhere, he runs the risk of discrediting the Democrats as a party of national security for a generation. He has said quite clearly that he will not "cut and run" in Iraq. And the truth is: He cannot. There is no alternative to seeing the war through in Iraq. And Kerry's new mandate and fresh administration will increase the options available to us for winning. He has every incentive to be tough enough but far more leeway to be flexible than the incumbent.

Not a rousing endorsement, to be sure. But perhaps one that is very relevant to those swing voters who liked the Bush who was president on 9/12/01 but aren't comfortable with him now.

Meanwhile, Editor and Publisher conducts an informal analysis of its ongoing Newspaper Endorsement tally. Kerry has a big advantage, and they dispel the myth that most papers go to Democrats, E&P notes that the 72 largest papers split virtually evenly for Bush vs. Gore in 2000 (they're 3 to 2 for Kerry this year), and an analysis of ALL papers shows that normally they go Republican, making Kerry's immense endorsement edge even more telling. E&P does a state-by-state analysis which reflects this advantage, but what's most interesting is Florida, which many people think is tipping ever-so-slightly to Bush. They note that Kerry has gained the endorsement of the states eight largest papers (not counting the traditionally Republican Tampa Tribune, which refused to endorse anyone). When Bush's top (indeed only) supporters in the state is The Lakeland Ledger and Ocala Star-Banner, there are problems. But E&P goes further, making perhaps the ballsiest call of the election so far:

So let's give this state to Kerry. In fact, if Bush pulls this one out, E&P promises never to give any weight to editorial endorsements in the future.

Never give ANY weight to editorial endorsements? That's putting alot on the line for a state that appears to lean (albeit very slightly) Republican.

Death to Castro

Too funny. From a press conference by Richard Boucher, Spokesperson for the US State Department:

QUESTION: Did you hear that Castro fell?

MR. BOUCHER: We heard that Castro fell. There are, I think, various reports that he broke a leg, an arm, a foot, and other things, and I'd guess you'd have to check with the Cubans to find out what's broken about Mr. Castro. We, obviously, have expressed our views about what's broken in Cuba.

QUESTION: Do you wish him a speedy recovery?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

I don't know why I find this fall off the chair funny, but I do. Probably because I can imagine Boucher saying "no" in a total deadpan. In any event, it's rare to see the State Department specifically wish ill (passively in this case, but still) to a head of state, even a hostile one. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the tipoff.

Run! It's a Liberal!

Andrew Sullivan tips me off to a great quote in the Des Moines Register's endorsement of John Kerry.

"Yes, Kerry is liberal. But what's to fear from a liberal president? That he would run big deficits? That he would increase federal spending? That he would expand the power of the federal government over individuals' lives? Nothing Kerry could do could top what President Bush has already done in those realms."

Conservatives all aghast at John Kerry's horrible liberalism should take a look at who they have in office right now.

Of course, Senator Kerry has never been as liberal as his opponents have tried to label him. The Register continues:

"Kerry is not the stereotypical liberal in any case. According to the "Almanac of American Politics," Kerry is "more respectful of economic free markets" and more inclined to an expansionist foreign policy than other liberal Democrats. He has been a champion of small business. He was an early supporter of the conservative Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction act.

An overview of Kerry's 20 years in the Senate shows a conscientious lawmaker, popular with the home-state voters. Kerry's legislative interests have run to investigating government wrongdoing, strengthening law enforcement, securing health care for children and preventing nuclear proliferation. He has a strong record on the environment."

Horrors upon horrors. Preventing Nuclear Proliferation? That's pinko commie talk, that is! And being "The most Liberal Senator"? Utter falsehood. Overall, Kerry was ranked at most the 11th most liberal senator over his time in congress (By the way, big shoutout to Vice President Cheney for telling me about this site. I'm so glad he has a commitment to truth that extends beyond partisan interests. Or perhaps he just screwed up, badly. That would be more fitting to type.).

Kerry keeps getting momentum in the mainstream press. I'm optimistic that eventually the torrent of endorsements Kerry is receiving will have an impact on the race. Unless, of course, we're devoured by wolves first.

Washington Post Endorses Kerry

The Washington Post delivers a surprisingly timid endorsement to John Kerry. The Post is one of the few major newspapers which I still have a great deal of respect for, and I was surprised that they seemed very cautious in endorsing Kerry. Still, at the end of the day, the message is upbeat, and I think this presents a reasonably strong case for the election of Sen. Kerry.

"In Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton before him believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We supported the war and believed that the Iraqi dictator posed a challenge that had to be faced; we continue to believe that the U.S. mission to promote a representative government in Iraq has a chance to leave the United States safer and the Iraqis far better off than they were under their murderous dictator.

We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable. There is no guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today if U.S. forces had prevented postwar looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly. But the chances of success would have been higher. Yet the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not decades, the United States' image and influence abroad. In much of the world, in fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the president's high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.

These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush's cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs.
...
We have been dismayed most of all by Mr. Kerry's zigzags on Iraq, such as his swervings on whether Saddam Hussein presented a threat. As Mr. Bush charges, Mr. Kerry's description of the war as a "diversion" does not inspire confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry has repeatedly pledged not to cut and run from Iraq, and we believe a Kerry administration would be better able to tackle the formidable nation-building tasks that remain there. Mr. Kerry echoes the Bush goals of an elected Iraqi government and a well-trained Iraqi force to defend it but argues that he could implement the strategy more effectively.

Mr. Kerry understands that the biggest threat to U.S. security comes from terrorists wielding nuclear or biological weapons. He pledges to add two divisions to the U.S. Army; try harder to secure nuclear weapons and materials around the world, and improve U.S. preparations for a bioterrorism attack. There is no way to know whether he would be more successful than Mr. Bush in slowing North Korea's and Iran's march toward becoming nuclear-armed states, but he attaches the right priority to both problems. He is correct that those challenges, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, call for the kind of sustained diplomacy that has been missing for four years. We hope he would be firmer than Mr. Bush in standing up to the genocide unfolding in Sudan.

We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable. He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; to hunt down terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic world. These are the right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet to achieve them."

The Post's endorsement capped off a great newspaper day for Sen. Kerry, picking up 17 new papers that supported Bush in 2000 today alone. Three more Bush-2000 supporters, The New Orleanes Times-Picayune, The Harrisburg Patriot-News, and The Detriot News (which has never supported a Demcratic Presidential Candidate) all refused to deliver an endorsement at all. To top it all off, Kerry flipped the Orlando Sentinel from Bush, capping a sweep of every major Florida newspaper. Kerry now leads Bush 113-71 in endorsements by Editor & Publisher's count, and by about 14.4 million to 8.6 million in the circulation of backing papers

But the day wasn't all lost for Bush. He recieved the hotly contested Columbus Dispatch endorsement (though they're even more subdued about it than the Post was), which will be a big boon in razor's edge Ohio. And speaking of Ohio, its been reported that the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the other major Ohio paper up for grabs, has delayed its endorsement decision. Apparently, the editorial board voted to endorse Kerry, but the publisher, who has the final say, backs Bush. The endorsement was put off to allow heads to cool and attempt to work out a compromise, possibly in the form of a dissenting pro-Kerry editorial.

I want to return to Dispatch editorial, because it raised an interesting argument that I think need to be addressed. The Dispatch notes that it opposed the Iraq war originally but

"The most crucial challenge facing the next president is winning the peace in Iraq. Although the rationale for the Iraq war has been proved wrong, no one should underestimate the stakes now. The United States must see the job through to the end.

For far too long, dictators and terrorists have believed that Americans lack staying power. Friends and enemies of the United States are watching closely to see if the casualties and expense of the war will sap the nation’s will to plant democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. For America, there is no other choice but to succeed. Failure will sow more terrorism and tyranny.

Like it or not, America must stand firm."

I'm in entire agreement (except that I supported the war), and furthermore I think this a point KERRY should have made earlier, because I think it dovetails nicely with his criticism of how the war was conducted. By making this argument, he could dodge accusations that he is weak on terror while still scoring all the points he's getting now by hammering Bush on Iraq. I wonder if had made this argument, would he have swung the Dispatch? The election?

Love Jonathan Chait, Hate the LA Times

I love Jonathan Chait. Of all the authors I've read (including my beloved Daniel Drezner, who, despite his brilliance, is a little too libertarian for my tastes), he's the one I've found myself agreeing with most often. The man writes beautifully, and his article "The 9/10 President" (subscription only) should be required reading for anyone voting in this election. I hate the LA Times because all of their articles require registration, and it annoys me. I finally gave in and registered, because I wanted to read this article on US democratization policies, helpfully linked to by Matthew Yglesias. And just to be even more aggrevating, the best part of the article was the paragraph Matthew summerized, so I didn't even really NEED to register at all. Grrr.

Well, here's the money quote.

Bush and his supporters act as if anti-Americanism is simply the necessary and worthwhile price we pay for our principled advocacy of freedom everywhere. The truth is that anti-Americanism has prevented us from consistently advocating democracy throughout the world. And the inconstancy of our belief in democracy — which the citizens of pro-American dictatorships everywhere have noticed and exploited — makes anti-Americanism all the worse. There may be a way out of this dilemma, but preaching the universality of democracy and practicing otherwise is surely not it.

The problem with this is that even when the US does make bona fide efforts to promote democracy, we are viewed with mistrust because of our miserable track record on the subject. Do we really care if Iraq becomes a Democracy, or do we just want whatever government will give us oil access? I'm not such a partisan as to think that Bush doesn't care whether or not Iraq is a democracy or not. But his actions around the world have delegitimized the US' credibilty when we say we "support democracy." Do we support it in Russia? How about Uzbekistan? China? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? And when we stumble upon a democracy that we dislike, do we support it or undermine it? Why don't you ask a Venezualan and see how they answer that question.

I've argued on numerous occassions that democratization represents our best, perhaps only hope to winning the war in Iraq and, more broadly, the war on terror. The fact is that currently, western political values don't present a viable political alternative muslim extremism (or illiberal nationalism in general) because the rest of the world only sees the side of the US that is willing to bargain with dictators, shortchange the interests of the global periphery, and sanction the oppression of millions of people around the world. Can they blamed when they naturally assume the worst about the US even when we really do have the best of intentions? It's a vicious cycle that we need to break out of.

Can We Ever Win?

Is it just me, or are the odds stacked against us? It seems like the electoral map is conspiring against Kerry. On the other hand, assuming Kerry takes Ohio and New Mexico (which I still think is rather likely), he only needs two of the Upper-Midwest three (Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin) to win. Or without New Mexico, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Or he could just win FLORIDA, dammit.

This is annoying. I hope that Kerry can put on some heat in the stretch.

Daniel Drezner Endorses Kerry!!!

In a move that virtually guarentees the outcome of the Presidential Election, Daniel Drezner has just announced he's voting for John Kerry!

Well, in a just world it would guarentee Kerry the election. In the real world, five Dupont Circle Libertarians decide to vote for Kerry and Andrew Sullivan gives him another look, causing a ripple effect that convinces literally DOZENS of people to vote for Kerry! But hey, I'm allowed to be excited. Congratulations on finally taking the plunge.

In other endorsement news, Josh Chafetz has also given the nod to Kerry. Oh, and former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has done likewise, a move I'd be tempted to dismiss as irrelevant except that it might actually HAVE an impact on the suddenly swingy Minnesota.

Also, Bush made headway in the Newspaper Endorsement wars, picking up 8 papers today. Veteran political watchers were stunned to see that both the Washington Times AND the New York Post decided to endorse Bush. But sarcasm aside, the other 6 papers Bush picked up were all in swing states (3 in Colorado, 1 each in Oregon, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin). Kerry picked up only two papers, in the ever-competitive Alabama and Indiana. But in terms of overall circulation and total papers, Kerry still has a comfortable lead.

Beyond Tax Cuts: The Future of the GOP

Mark Schmitt posts a superb article on the undoing of the Republican Party (hat tip: Crooked Timber), a phenomona that I have blogged about ad naseum.

Money Quote

Tax cuts are not conservatism. They are not a coherent worldview. They were a part of the conservative philosophy, but not an end in themselves. Stripped out of the larger framework of smaller government, of modesty about the possibilities of change, of respect for tradition and history, and of the sense that central government can be oppressive as easily as it can be liberating, tax cuts amount to nothing more than a material benefit for a few, and a long-term liability for everyone else. Put another way, imagine that the animating ideas of liberalism were reduced to this promise: "We will create a new cabinet-level agency every single year." That's not a vision that can attract deep loyalty, and neither is the promise of a tax cut every year.

What, exactly, does the Republican Party have left? It doesn't have a commitment to Homeland Security, witness Bush's opposition to the DHS, 9/11 commission, and a myriad of other HS reforms. It doesn't have a commitment to small government, look at the Prescription Drug Coverage plan. It doesn't have a commitment to states rights, look at NCLB. It doesn't care about government non-intrusiveness, look at the FMA and the PATRIOT act. The closest thing to a coherent foreign policy it has is a commitment to democratization, which I support (and tragically, many Democrats have reflexively opposed despite it being a natural extension of liberal views), but even this appears to have stalled out beyond Afghanistan and Iraq (look at our anemic protests towards Putin's Russia, and our devil's bargain with Uzbekistan, for example). I would say Republican's like to blow things up, but then why is North Korea still on the map? It appears that LITERALLY the only thing that "unites" the Republican party is tax cuts, and that coalition simply can't hold together much longer.

What would be interesting is seeing what the "new" GOP will be. In discussing it with my friends, the most popular answer is that the Rockefellers will united with the "traditionalists" (IE, McCain and his ilk), with the libertarians still cautiously supporting them (but, like today, being relegated to the margins), and the social conservatives being the odd men out. They justify this on two grounds, first, that the social conservatives are the farthest from mainstream American thought and thus would be logically the first to be jettisoned, and second that since American youth are more tolerant than their parents, the religious right is a shrinking demographic anyway and thus won't be able to wield as much power. I lean more towards the social conservatives taking control, taking about 3/4 of the traditionalists with them. The Rockefellers, Libertarians, and remaining Traditionalists will become independents or possibly Democrats. The reason I think this is true is that, even if their numbers are naturally shrinking, the religious right still is by far their largest constituency and biggest voting bloc. Not only do they keep the deep south and plain states firmly in Republican hands (and let's remember, the south's Huey Long roots mean it doesn't have any emotional attachment to small, limited government per se, same thing for turn of the century prairie populism, neither has deep, longstanding mistrust of government), but they also represent the GOPs best argument towards otherwise democrat leaning constituencies in swing states. Look at Ohio, for example. There, the GOP isn't selling its economic message to prospective voters, it's seeking to lure voters to the polls by virtue of the anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot. On economics, they lose, on social policies, they win, and that's why the social conservatives will have disproportionate leverage in the party. Simply put, the social conservatives can reasonably argue that they can create a winning electoral strategy without anyone else's help, which may or may not be true but gives them a lot of maneuvering room in the chaos that is to come. The Rockefellers and Libertarians simply aren't prevalent enough in the GOP base to really influence the party (the former concentrated in the solidly Democratic Northeast, the latter rarely seen outside of Dupont Circle in DC). This grip is only strengthened by virtue of the fact that the vast majority of the Republican leadership is in the social conservative wing (DeLay, Kyl, Santorum, Hastert, Bond, etc). If the moderates wish to take control of the GOP, they'd have to mount a coup, if the social conservatives wish to stay in control, they just have to let the moderates die of attrition. Ultimately, demographics work against this new party, and it will drift back towards the center. But in the short term, I expect the GOP to turn hard to the right, especially if it loses this election.

Another Defection

Joining the ranks of intelligent conservatives who are endorsing Kerry comes Former Michigan Governor William G. Milliken. After giving a slew of objections to how Bush has distorted and twisted the GOP from its old roots, he concludes with this statement:

The truth is that President George W. Bush does not speak for me or for many other moderate Republicans on a very broad cross section of issues.
Sen. John Kerry, on the other hand, has put forth a coherent, responsible platform of progressive initiatives that I believe would serve this country well. He wants to balance the budget, step up environmental protection efforts, rebuild our international relationships, support stem-cell research, protect choice and pursue a number of other progressive initiatives that moderates from both parties can support.
As a result, despite my long record of active involvement in the Republican Party, and my intention still to stay in the Republican Party, when I cast my ballot November 2, I will be voting for John Kerry for President.

Oddly enough, the Republican Party that Milliken outlines is one that I could support. But alas, I think it's days are gone forever.

Lightening Strikes Twice

UPDATE: 10/19/04 @ 1:09 PM
The National Review gives a compelling and eloquent statement about why it will not support GWB in this election:

It is one thing to swallow doubts and support the Republican candidate when he is a blur making amiable noises and there is the possibility of pleasant surprise. That is what many voters--and this journal--did in supporting George W. Bush in 2000. But when that candidate has confirmed all those doubts, to vote for him a second time is an act of political decadence. It is a ratification of failure that betrays both conservative principles and the principle of accountability. It is a message from us as conservatives to the rest of the political community that the damage done under our banner has our blessing. More urgently, it is a message from us as citizens to those who would rule over us that we can be taken in by words and gesture; that we won't measure a politician's record against objective standards or his own promises.
...
George W. Bush has met almost every challenge of his presidency by concentrating on the manipulation of imagery. In raising hokum to a new level of audacity and sophistication, he has relied shamelessly on the voters' short memories, on their failure to connect word and deed (let alone deed and result)...Now Bush and his advisers are using every illusion in their corpus of legerdemain to avoid running on the record they have compiled. His television commercials, and indeed his whole campaign self-presentation, are simply images of presidentiality. The Bush people know that their record of accomplishments is indefensible.
...
In 2000, Bush styled himself the artless outsider, uncorrupted by Washington and its evil habits. This year, in a typically brazen transformation, he is Mr. Experience, a worldly statesman in a job for which anything less than incumbency is inadequate qualification. But Bush is not the only one who's experienced his presidency for the past four years. So have his constituents. It's time to show that we've learned from experience.

Oh wait, that's not The National Review! That's The New Republic writing on why it refused to endorse Jimmy Carter back in 1980! (Just replace "conservative" with "liberal," "2000" with "1976," "Bush" with "Carter" etc etc). Silly me. What a careless mistake.

UPDATE: I'm not saying GWB is the next incarnation of Jimmy Carter. Obviously they are very different in temperament as well as policy. I'm just pointing out a) That The New Republic has an admirable non-partisan streak to it and b) That Liberals were more willing to apply the standards of accountability and holding a candidate to his record than conservatives are this year.