Month: January 2008

The Economist digs into the question of Ron Paul’s allies.

Maybe that’s the real divide over Clinton:

It strikes me that the split between women moved by Hillary’s NH plight and those unconvinced by it mirrors the split in their basic political viewpoints. The women who were drawn to Hillary seem to be the same ones who support the old, big government, liberal ethos. The women who rejected HRC’s vulnerability moment seem to have a much more libertarian streak.

The Paglias of the country want to take responsibility for their own actions and face their own consequences on their own terms, while the Steinems want Big Brother to make everyone play nice.  It’s the old big vs. limited government argument, writ in terms of gender.  The Obama side stands for the development of a grassroots movement in which Americans take an active part in their governance and are complicit in its actions, while the Clinton aesthetic demands a government that does everything for everyone and thereby enforces some kind of equality.

That’s a helpful distinction. Of course, I’ve long sided with Camille Paglia on this question. I belong to a minority, but I’ve always insisted on playing by the same rules as straights. I want no special privilege and no government discrimination either. My libertarian-conservative approach to gay politics was laid out in Virtually Normal. It’s one reason I don’t fit in with the Human Rights Campaign people either. I’m happy to live my life, and let others live theirs’. I don’t want or need the government to love me, make me feel better or tell me how to live. My deep difference with Hillary Clinton is precisely this. In my view, it takes an individual. And that’s not a function of misogyny. It’s a function of believing in liberty.

Rod Dreher links to a very honest, almost painfully honest, account of his friend, Doug LeBlanc’s, attempts to figure out whom to support in this election. LeBlanc is a conservative evangelical. But the thought of a Romney or a Giuliani appals him. He cannot get past his feelings about Clinton. He longs for an Obama-McCain race, which right now is my dream as well. Read the whole thing. He asks:

Can anyone else relate to my struggles?

Relate? I’m living them. And so are many Dish readers, judging from my in-tray.

The mighty Reihan weighs in:

But, frankly, the pothead vote alone gets you pretty far.

If only they’d get out to vote.

Bainbridge had fun with it. I did too. I come out close to the center in the upper right quadrant – high on the economic center-right and socially "progressive". Yes: Ron Paul’s the candidate closest to my positions. Giuliani is next. Then McCain. And then the others – Democrat and Republican. Fred Thompson is the furthest from my spot. Obama is about as far away from me as Huckabee is. Which proves Dan Drezner right, I guess. Character counts. Dan and me came out pretty much the same. I’m not a lefty. I just can’t stand most of these Republicans. And my favorite had some vile racists and bigots as his allies.

"Oprah, you play the race card and the gender card too. You are a closeted Republican and chose Barak [sic] Obama because you do not like other women who actually stand for something to working American Women besides glamour, angels, hollywood and dieting! When Americans find out that Obama backs right wing corporate racist anti worker bullshit, they will not vote for him, and the victory will go to the most racist right wing republican ever…. Mccain, who is a fascist!" – Roseanne Barr.

For me, the big news was that Fred Thompson is alive. He came out swinging against Huckabee in ways that frankly surprised me. Funny at times, acerbic at others, he seemed much more comfortable as a campaigner. I also have to say that on national security, McCain was simply far and away the most reassuring as a potential president. When he ran through his national security experience, you could almost see Giuliani shrinking visibly into his suit. His weak points were his somewhat desperate plea to "round up" illegal immigrants and his demagoguic resort to calling any critique of the Iraq occupation as somehow an attack on the troops. Please. Romney had one good riff on change – reminding me of what he could have presented himself as in this election, i.e. an able executive rather than a pandering pseudo-Christianist theo-bot. Huckabee is, however, very good under fire – affable, not very flappable, and humane. His response to the Ephesians question was disingenuous, however. The Scripture does not tell husbands to submit to wives. It tells them to love their wives in return for their wives’ obedience. And, of course, when he explains that marriage teaches human beings "how to love," any gay person listening can only hear exclusion. He doesn’t care, but there it is. But I do feel obliged to tell Republicans: love is not exclusive to heterosexuals. And gay couples are not antithetical to family life.

And, yes, thank God for Ron Paul.

No one else, except McCain, copped to the GOP’s rank betrayal of fiscal conservatism, limited government, prudent foreign policy and civil liberties. When he was asked to disown the 9/11 Truthers, he gave a revealing answer, and one that reflects on the newsletters issue. It just isn’t in his nature to adopt other people’s views, or to tell anyone else what to believe or what to say. He doesn’t just believe in libertarianism; he lives it. This means that he doesn’t have the instinct to police anyone else’s views or actions within the law or the Constitution. I don’t think it excuses his negligence in the past, but it does help me understand it better.

One other vital thing: none of the candidates seems to have the slightest nuance on the Iraq war. I don’t find Paul’s extreme non-interventionism to be palatable; but I don’t think it’s less inherently reasonable than McCain’s belief in occupying half the planet for ever as long as we don’t have US casualties. Giuliani is the nuttiest. Romney just vacuous and dumb. To listen to McCain, you would honestly think Iraq would soon become a peaceful, unified, independent nation. At best, that might happen in 50 years time. Until then, we have to occupy the place, constantly juggling various militias, appeasing various factions, arming those who will one day attack us and then the next day realign with us? Empire is a rough business. And when you’re running en empire on borrowed money and your own currency is going down the tubes, it’s not an indefinite prospect. And if McCain believes Arab culture will tolerate a permanent American occupation the way that Koreans or Germans have, he has learned nothing from these past five years and even less from history.

He is, however, clearly the Republicans’ best viable candidate. That is the good news for the GOP. Given the imperial over-reach it implies, it is also the bad news.

(Photo: Eric Thayer/Getty.)

A reader writes:

Truman could definitely have done things better, and asking for Kennedy to step down was ridiculous, but there is a huge difference: Truman was right. The Democratic Convention in 1960 was terribly, and unduly, influenced by the Kennedy campaign.  Kennedy supporters were passing out bribes to precinct captains and county sheriffs all throughout the country–particularly in the South – and it’s not exactly like Joe Kennedy didn’t have any influence and wasn’t mega-rich from criminal business. This is all well documented. Why shouldn’t he have been concerned? What if Obama’s father was a former narco-trafficker with connections to the mafia?

Compare it to Bill Clinton, who called Obama’s campaign a fairy tale, misrepresented his remarks and his platform, and blames the media for not asking questions it actually asked months ago.  And note how Truman didn’t gush about all the wonderful things he did and then say, to the effect, "oh yeah, by the way, Symington is running too" the way Bill does with his wife.  Truman was out of line, but he was honestly concerned about his party, not trying to run for a third term.