Month: September 2004

One of his cabinet ministers drops a hint.

I don’t agree with his assessment of the Iraq war, but I do agree that Arnold’s pitch to conservatives like me was insufficient. And its insufficiency is related to its avoidance of all the hard questions that must be asked of Bush.

Alan Keyes calls Mary Cheney a “selfish hedonist” because she is a lesbian. (It’s worth recalling that Keyes’ intellectual mentor, the brilliant philosopher, Allan Bloom, was also a “selfish hedonist.”) Meanwhile, the Family Research Council distributes fortune cookies at MSG with the message: “Real Men Marry Women.” I guess Jesus and the Pope aren’t real men.

I thought this was kinda funny. (And I played Hamlet in grad school.) Yes, I am in political agony. As a classical conservative on most issues, my heart warms to the themes of this convention: freedom, strong defense, true diversity, personal compassion. I like Bush as a person and respect his good intentions. It is very hard to disagree with the central argument of my idols, McCain, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger, that Bush has the better temperament and will to conduct the war against our enemies. And I remain as committed to that war as I have ever been. You only have to see the carnage in Russia, or the hideous massacre of Nepalese workers in Iraq, or the threats against French journalists to see why this war is vital. But that doesn’t mean you should not grapple with the other side of the equation: How will Bush bring us back to fiscal sanity? What will he do with Iran? How can he wage a competent war while alienating so many of our allies? (You should hear how the pro-war Brits talk of his diplomacy.) How can he unite the country while backing the agenda of Christian fundamentalism in all domestic issues? How can he guarantee progress in Iraq while the country is riven by two major insurgencies? The answers I keep getting from Republicans is: Kerry would be worse. That is not an answer. It is an avoidance. Conservatives should not let pure partisanship blind them to fiscal abandon, war incompetence, and social intolerance. Maybe Kerry’s characterological weakness makes Bush the best bet in the war. Maybe that means he deserves your vote in November. But that doesn’t mean these underlying questions can be ignored or forgotten. They could make a second term a disaster – for the country and for conservatism and for the world.

“Why so shocked about Bush girls! I was at the Garden last night, and was sort of surprised at how hot and decked out the women were — lots of skin, decolletage, fashionable clothing, etc. We New Yorkers may be the prudes. We are certainly the snobs. You forget Republicans are not just Baptists — and even if they are, they are usually so only on Sunday. They are fun-loving, rich Texas businessmen showing off their hot women and looking to have fun in the big city. Again, we forget that Southern women are VERY into being hot and flaunting it.The only swingers weren’t just on the podium.” Yes, the few times I have attended these shindigs, I’ve noticed that the Republicans are usually much sexier than the Democrats – especially the men. The people running the show are hipper as well. Odd, I know, given the religious right dominance. But striking nonetheless.

How to convey the spectacular incoherence of last night’s continuing infomercial for the re-election of George W. Bush? The evening began with a series of speeches trumpeting vast increases in federal spending: on education, healthcare, AIDS, medical research, and on and on. No, these were not Democrats. They were Bush Republicans, extolling the capacity of government to help people, to cure the sick, educate the young, save Africans from HIV, subsidize religious charities, prevent or cure breast cancer, and any other number of worthy causes. The speakers were designed to target certain demographic and interest groups, just as the Democrats used to. The notion that these things are best left to the private sector, or that spending needs to be slashed in the wake of rising debt, or that the race of a speaker is irrelevant: all these are now Republican heterodoxy. The highpoint of this section was the speech of Bill Frist. I’ve never really listened to him give a speech before and this one was frighteningly bad. He has a cadaverous face and a terrifying smile. His first anecdote made no sense at all. His denunication of trial lawyers – the one moment when he didn’t look like a funeral director – left him wild-eyed and awkward-gestured. He spoke as if to a bunch of seven year olds in their second language. How did this guy ever get to a position of leadership? He’s the Senate Majority Leader and, on a bad day, he’d give small kids nightmares. His speech was a mishmash of comic cliches, pathetically contrived hand movements, that robotic swivel from teleprompTer screen to teleprompTer screen, and crude demagoguery. When you see who really runs the GOP (funny Tom DeLay isn’t in prime time, isn’t it?), you begin to realize why a cross-dressing ex-mayor, a dissident Californian and an unelected ex-librarian are among its major spokespeople.

HIGHLIGHT OF THE NIGHT: Elisabeth Hasselbeck’s ass. I know I’m not the best authority in these matters, but I think the C-Span cameraman had the same insight.

THEN ARNOLD: My take on the California governor’s performance can be read at The New Republic Online.

But Jenna and Barbara really did steal the show. The word “sex” emanated from the stage. No, this wasn’t an ad lib. The marketers who are promoting the policies of James Dobson and Rick Santorum were making jokes mocking the prudery of people who think “Sex and the City” is something only married people do and never talk about. Like the president’s gaffe about not winning the war on terror, this could never have been uttered at a Democratic convention without the Dems being described as out-of-touch metrosexuals. But the delegates, knowing that this kind of front is necessary to win over the American middle, didn’t seem to mind. Compared to the earnest, mature, almost somber Kerry daughters, these two were upper-class brats, giggling, cooing, pointing to friends in the crowd, giggling over their lines, and generally showing the maturity of the average “American Idol” contestant. I have to say I loved it – if only for its authenticity, for the sudden interruption of an actual reality into the sometimes surreal script of this convention. So we have an Austrian-American bodybuilder with a history of orgies and a couple of spoiled, hard-drinking party girls fronting for a party whose platform is inspired in large part by Biblical fundamentalism. Yep. It would be hard to convey a more vivid reflection of our fractured culture than that.

LAURA: I’m one of those people who believe that the spouses of candidates should have no role at conventions or in government and are best seen and not heard (that goes for men as well as women). But Laura Bush is easily a more appealing character than a woman who has long forgotten that the only reason anyone is interested in what she has to say is her money. Laura’s speech was boilerplate and that hideous, pink, cut-glass thingy they shoved behind her was distracting. My only real quibble is that it seems logically weird to argue that embryonic stem cell research is an abuse of human life and yet brag that her husband permitted the first federally-funded studies. If it’s an abuse of human life, shouldn’t it be deplored in all cases?

DIVERSITY: Another theme was the alleged ideological diversity of the GOP. See – we allow our dissidents prime speaking spots, they argue. But the test of diversity is whether those speakers can actually dissent from party nostrums, and speak their own minds. But McCain, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger all avoided any mention of domestic disagreements and merely vouched for Bush’s character and qualifications to be a war-leader. That’s not diversity. On the real issues that divide the party – the spending, the deficit, stem-cell research, the incompetence of the Iraq occupation, the FMA, immigration – there was and will be no dissent allowed. The platform is the most hardline religious right document ever put together by the GOP. In that way, the dutiful appearance by one dissident after another, all of whom merely express confidence in the blessed leader, comes off as actually quite creepy. Yes, they are welcome as Republicans. But only if they toe the line in public and help re-elect the ticket. Will their views be accommodated after the election? Are you kidding? And the real leaders of the party, and its intellectual inspirations, are kept off-stage. Yes: politics as usual and no big deal. But please spare me the diversity crap. In that respect, so far, this convention has had as much variation as Bob Dole’s hair color.