Love Unprovable

Lauren Slater recounts her time spent in a foster home and the pet raccoon that helped her adjust:

When Amelia came to us she was wild, but within 24 hours it seemed to me she’d consented to tameness. I had no way of knowing that this was untrue. I didn’t understand that when Amelia followed me everywhere she acted out of instinct, not fondness. Later I read the work of the ethologist Konrad Lorenz, who made famous Eddythe fact that orphaned wild ducklings would cathect to the first person they saw after struggling free from their shells, that person’s face indelibly imprinted on the infant animal’s malleable brain. I’d see in Lorenz’s book photos of him walking like the Pied Piper, a long line of geese waddling behind him. Lorenz also discovered that if, upon birth, the wild geese first saw a boot, or a spoon, in motion, they would imprint upon it with the same ferocious loyalty, longing only to be near the inanimate object, somehow sucking from it succor and safety without thought or plan.

Amelia, in other words, was not following me because she loved me; she followed me because some dumb drive urged her to do so, the drive itself as wild as wings or water. Does this diminish the encounter? Not at all. We adore our pets not because they love us, but because they prove to us, day after day after day, that we love them with a purity not possible in human-to-human encounters. Our animals prove to us how capacious the human heart can be, and in doing so they give us a great gift.

Will Obama Crack Down On Legal Weed?

Paul Campos hopes Obama respects the wishes of Colorado and Washington state voters:

Marijuana legalization may not seem like a particularly important issue. It is – because a rational approach to marijuana regulation is the first step toward treating drug addiction as a medical problem, rather than a law enforcement issue. This in turn would be an important step toward combating the catastrophic social consequences of a criminal justice system that has put an astounding 2.5 million Americans in prisons and jails on any given day.

Allowing states to adopt more rational drug policies is the absolute minimum that progressives ought to expect out of the Obama administration in regard to such matters. When it comes to ending the federal government’s absurd war on marijuana, our plea to Barack Obama couldn’t be simpler: don’t just do something, stand there.

Amen. If Obama's DEA follows the claptrap of this kind of thinking, they can expect a war from their base. Leave the states alone.

What’s Next For Romney?

Lauren Ashburn asks around:

Historian Douglas Brinkley, author of the bestselling book Cronkite, argues that life in politics is over for the man who could have been president. "There is no such thing as a Romney Republican," Brinkley says. The former Massachusetts governor’s move to the center and his flip-flopping on such issues as abortion, health care, and tax cuts during the campaign left many wondering just exactly what he stands for. "He’s not going to be beloved by the conservative movement. Not when you lose when unemployment is 7.9 percent."

The obvious place for Romney to hang his hat, says Brinkley, is back in the world of business, where the Republican made a fortune as an aggressive dealmaker at Bain Capital. "The only thing he seems proficient at is making himself money," he says.

America’s New Realities

David Simon heralds them:

This election marks a moment in which the racial and social hierarchy of America is upended forever. No longer will it mean more politically to be a white male than to be anything else. Evolve, or don’t. Swallow your resentments, or don’t. But the votes are going to be counted, more of them with each election. Arizona will soon be in play. And in a few cycles, even Texas. And those wishing to hold national office in these United States will find it increasingly useless to argue for normal, to attempt to play one minority against each other, to turn pluralities against the feared “other” of gays, or blacks, or immigrants, or, incredibly in this election cycle, our very wives and lovers and daughters, fellow citizens who demand to control their own bodies.

Alyssa adds her two cents.

Will The Right’s Fever Break? Ctd

Michael Grunwald finds little reason to think so:

[F]or all the punditry about a coming Republican civil war, it’s not clear that the party really wants to change in any serious way — or that it could change if it wanted to. Even GOP elites, while concerned that winnable races are being sacrificed on the altar of extremism, suggest that the party is likely to stay the course that worked in 2010. Congressman Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a former Republican political consultant, has been a consistent voice for pragmatism over purity inside the party, but he doesn’t foresee any radical shifts after Tuesday’s split decision. “It’s sobering that we’re throwing away Senate seats. But I don’t see a great schism,” Cole says. “I see a very unified, very conservative party that’s very alarmed about the growth of government. Who would be the generals in our great civil war?”

Poseur Alert

"Alas, as always, the duty of the Right is to manfully endure, to survive the defeat and stubbornly oppose the vaunting foe, and so this brutal shock, this electoral catastrophe, must be absorbed and digested. At some point next week or next month or next year, then, we shall recover our morale and plot some new stratagem for the future. In the immediate aftermath of Tuesday's debacle, however, it is difficult to see any glimmer of light amid the encroaching gloom. Surely, there are many Americans who now sympathize with that New York infantryman who, in the bleak winter of 1862, when the Union's Army of the Potomac was under the incompetent command of Gen. Ambrose Burnside, wrote home in forlorn complaint: 'Mother, do not wonder that my loyalty is growing weak.… I am sick and tired of the disaster and the fools that bring disaster upon us'" - Robert Stacy McCain.

For those who have forgotten, the Poseur Alert is awarded "for passages of prose that stand out for pretension, vanity and really bad writing designed to look like profundity."

How Obama Won

A demographic breakdown:

Most post-election demographic analysis has focused on the GOP's overwhelming loss of the Hispanic vote. Alex Massie encourages Republicans to show respect:

I don’t disagree with Max Boot when he says it would be useful if Republicans thought again about the DREAM Act but I think doing so will not be enough to solve the GOP’s hispanic problem. Because it is not just about immigration. It is about belonging. It is about respect. It is about being part of the American family. As Matt Yglesias observes -  in a characteristically excellent post – the GOP doesn’t understand this. Remember the brouhaha over Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court? Conservative snake-oil salesmen rushed to portray her as an “affirmative action” pick who was, anyway, some kind of racist because she had the temerity to suggest that her own background might prove a useful qualification for a place on the court. You don’t need to be an illegal immigrant to be annoyed by that.

Tomasky thinks Republicans need a new platform:

Latino people, like people generally, aren't stupid. Allegiance comes from substance. It's pretty simple. It doesn't come from symbolism or rhetoric. As I got in the car yesterday morning, I heard a guy on NPR talking, didn't catch his name, and he was talking about Republicans and blacks. He said basically: If Republicans want people of color to vote for them, they have to change their policies. They've been saying to blacks, for example, get off that Democratic plantation and join us. Well, that's absurd. Democrats' didn't get the allegiance of women by hectoring them, by saying take off that apron, GOP housewives, and join us. They won it with policies.

Ruy Teixeira believes the GOP's new Hispanic-friendly policies need to go beyond immigration reform:

I wrote a piece arguing that [GOP stances on immigration], in terms of projecting hostility toward that population, it clearly hurt them. But I also thought if you looked at Hispanics’ other opinions — opinions on the economy and opinions on the role of government, on education — just look at a wide variety of views on who can handle the economy, they’re very much aligned with the Democratic Party, and an activist view of government, and not with the hardcore, quasi-libertarian approach of the Republicans, which putting Paul Ryan on the ticket seemed to underscore. It wasn’t just immigration, but the general Republican stance on the role of government. I don’t think it just needs to be moving to the center on immigration, though that would certainly help. It needs to move on the role of government.

TNC adds:

I am hearing a great deal of talk about "appealing to Hispanics" and "appealing to women." But I am not hearing much about endorsing actual policies. What happened [Tuesday] night is not a matter of cosmetics. This is not false consciousness. This a real response to real policies. Mitt Romney actually endorsed Arizona's immigration policies. You can't fix this by flashing more pictures of brown people.

Will The Right’s Fever Break? Ctd

When you have divided the world into two categories – freedom or tyranny – and there is no ground whatever between them, you are not only among the least intelligent commentators out there; you also have to be completely fanatical even in the face of popular repudiation.

I watched Fox last night. Every pore on Sean Hannity’s face quivered. He seemed close to tears at times. He blamed EdmundBurke1771Obama for a horribly negative campaign. He basically told the majority of Americans who voted for a president Hannity actually seems to believe is the worst in modern times that they will now deserve their enslaved state.

The performance artist, Ann Coulter, just Etch-A-Sketched immediately to 2014. She cannot process the past, and yet she preposterously calls herself a conservative. Her gig is attacking – in the crudest, snarkiest, most cynical fashion – anything she can decide to call “liberal”. To ask her to reflect retroactively on a massive realigning loss for her kind of slash-and-burn conservatism was to ask her to do something she has no capacity to do.

O’Reilly was fascinating and immediately explained the result as a function of there being too many black and Latino and young voters who voted for “free stuff.” At no point last night did anyone on Fox even mention the four democratic victories for marriage equality across the country. When they referred to the Colorado marijuana legalization, they cut to a teenager bragging that he was going to get stoned tonight. William F Buckley was in favor of legalization. These performers had no argument as such; they just had contempt.

Yes, I watched for Schadenfreude purposes. These charlatans and money-grubbers have turned the broad tradition of Anglo-American conservatism into Southern Fried Fanaticism – and I wanted to see them crackle in their batter. They have replaced empirical doubt with unerring faith in an ideology that had its moment over thirty years ago and is barely relevant to the world we now live in. That faith has been cynically fused with fundamentalist religion to make it virtually impossible for the GOP to accept that women are the majority of voters in this country, that gay couples are equal to straight ones, that 11 million illegal immigrants simply cannot be expected to “self-deport” en masse by a regime of terrifying policing, that war is a last and not a first resort, that the debt we have is primarily a function of two things: George W. Bush’s presidency and the economic collapse his term ended with.

This kind of total fanaticism about an ideology that bears no resemblance to Burkean conservatism is often called religious. But the truly religious person is not focused on the Electoral College math, but on living her own life the right way in accordance with the God she worships. She is not obsessed with policing society to keep the “other” at bay – the homosexual, the African-American, the Latino immigrant, the single mother, the young straight dude who is truly baffled by the anachronisms of homophobia and the belief that alcohol is less harmful than marijuana. She knows that living a good life is hard enough without controlling the lives and fates and dignity of others.

But the person who fuses Manichean political warfare with theological certitude cannot, will not, abandon that stance for pragmatic purposes – because there is no greater evil than pragmatism for the fanatic. A political party can adapt and change; a fundamentalist religious party loses its entire authority if it admits error, because its message is based on religious texts that are held to be inerrant. The biggest obstacle in front of today’s GOP threfore remains theo-political fundamentalism, and how it can be overcome.

Listen to its tone, hear its anger, and absorb its utter irrelevance to anything but fantasy and delusion and mania:

We conservatives, we do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny. Period. We will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude. Period. We will not abandon our child to a dark and bleak future. We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country. We will not accept social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats who treat us like lab rats, rather than self-sufficient human beings. There are those in this country who choose tyranny over liberty. They do not speak for us, 57 million of us who voted against this yesterday, and they do not get to dictate to us under our Constitution.

We are the alternative. We will resist. We’re not going to surrender to this. We will not be passive, we will not be compliant in our demise. We’re not good losers, you better believe we’re sore losers! A good loser is a loser forever. Now I hear we’re called ‘purists.’ Conservatives are called purists. The very people who keep nominating moderates, now call us purists the way the left calls us purists. Yeah, things like liberty, and property rights, individual sovereignty, and the Constitution, and capitalism. We’re purists now. And we have to hear this crap from conservatives, or pseudo-conservatives, Republicans.

You know what, Mr Levin? The “crap” coming your way has only just begun.

Turns Out It’s Not A Great Idea To Campaign On Rape

Shuts-the-whole-thing-down

Rounding up a list of politicians who made reckless remarks about rape this election season, Erin Gloria Ryan declares that “team rape lost big [Tuesday] night”. Amy Sullivan says it wasn’t so much the messengers as the GOP’s underlying message: 

Mourdock and Akin lost because they each made the mistake of actually trying to explain an increasingly common position by Republican officer-holders, including Paul Ryan…. It’s not unusual for GOP politicians to oppose rape exceptions. But they haven’t previously had to defend that position—at least not on a big stage. When they are forced to explain themselves, as in the case of Akin and Mourdock, it’s not their words that alienate voters, but the idea of forcing women to carry to term a pregnancy that began in rape.

Nona Willis Aronowitz shows why the comments from “team rape” were especially damaging:

According to exit polls, it was 18 percent, an even bigger margin than the 12 percent gender gap in 2008. In crucial swing states like Ohio, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, Obama’s lead with the ladies helped tip the scale in his favor.

Alana Goodman examines how lightning rods like Akin got to be nominees in the first place:

After the blowback the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] received during the Tea Party wave in 2010, the committee stopped endorsing and openly funding primary candidates in open seats. That made it easier for an unfit candidate like Todd Akin to win the Republican nomination. There also wasn’t much the NRSC could have done about Richard Mourdock. While his poorly-worded comments about rape and abortion weren’t as outrageous as they were characterized in the media, they drew outsized attention because of the Akin controversy.

However, Michael Tanner argues that the “blame the Tea Party” view is a red herring:

Akin, contrary to media wisdom, was never a tea-party candidate. During the primaries, most tea-party groups backed one of his opponents. Akin won because he had strong support from social conservatives while the other candidates split the more economically conservative vote. Meanwhile, Mourdock’s self-inflicted wounds were not a result of his tea-party background…. Tea-party voters would do well to realize that simply being anti-establishment is not enough for a candidate. Supporting a candidate with the charisma and talents of a Ted Cruz or a Jeff Flake makes sense. Supporting a Richard Mourdock simply because he shares similar political views doesn’t work as well.