I’m glad that Bret Schundler, whom I once admired, and Mark Earley, whom I never had much time for, went down to defeat yesterday. Both used the ancient, divisive tactics of bigotry, especially gay-baiting, to score political points against their opponents. Schundler’s campaign spread unofficial smears about McGreevey’s private life, favored banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and tried hard to pander to the fundamentalist right. Earley campaigned hard early on for “Virginia values” rather than “Vermont values,” hoping to ride homophobia to victory. Both Schundler and Earley were hurt by internal GOP bickering, also fostered by right-wing purists in the party. Schundler’s early acquiescence to the religious right and his idiotic attacks on rescue workers in the wake of September 11 swamped his otherwise appealing low-tax message. Both got what they deserved against centrist candidates. Mark Warner’s campaign was particularly effective. He found a way to reassure conservative Virginians that his own entrepreneurial background insulated him from traditional liberalism, while rallying suburbanites and some rural voters to an inclusive message. I hope the national Republican party understands the message from these failed campaigns. Negativism, divisiveness, hard-right social conservatism, and reflexive hostility to all government are themes that don’t work any more. Give ’em up – or keep losing.
ORTEGA TROUNCED: In what is now a footnote in world history, Daniel Ortega failed for the third time to win a democratic election in Nicaragua last Sunday. The margin of victory for his opponent, Enrique Bolanos, was much wider than expected, proving once again that Communists rarely if ever win actual democratic elections. Bolanos is no saint and has his work cut out – but his victory is yet another sign that Nicaraguans, unlike the Western left, have no illusions about the Sandinista experiment in tyranny. Speaking of illusions, check out this piece from last week’s Guardian, predicting an Ortega win. It was written by one Isobel Hilton, who is also an analyst for the BBC, a once-great news organization now increasingly in the grip of left-wing propagandists.
OSAMA’S MESSAGE: Here’s the BBC’s translation of Osama bin Laden’s latest screed, which I haven’t seen anywhere in the American press. Nothing that remarkable except the attempt to exploit president Bush’s unfortunate gaffe with the word “crusade,” and a breath-taking attempt to portray the West’s intervention in the Balkans as somehow anti-Muslim. I’m glad bin Laden smeared Kofi Annan. It can only help harden world opinion against the pious multi-millionaire. I have to say, though, that bin Laden’s reflexive hatred of the U.N. makes him sound at times like one of the black helicopter crowd in the U.S. More ironies, I suppose.
UNDERSTANDING ECSTASY: I’ve long been a believer that the recreational drug, Ecstasy, may well have therapeutic qualities for all sorts of disorders, from Parkinson’s to depression. There have been many anecdotal examples of exactly such effects. It’s very good news, then, that the FDA has finally given the go-ahead for a tiny trial to explore the drug’s potential for alleviating post-traumatic stress. One of the many paternalist insanities of our prohibition on recreational soft drug-use is that it has barred important medical research avenues from being pursued. It has also barred further private and public research to refine the drug for recreational use – to rid it of some side-effects, to hone it to more nuanced and specific results, and generally to employ it for what the Founders of this country once called “the pursuit of happiness.” I don’t buy the argument that research into Ecstasy must only be restricted to medicinal purposes. Just because some forms of subjective happiness might come in a tube, a pill, or a bud, doesn’t mean that the government has a right to prohibit them. So let the research for cures begin. And let the research for better, cleaner, safer highs not be so far behind.
The Dish 