Category: Old Dish

I was all enthused by the smart tactics of the Democrats on opening night, and then I find out almost no one watched it. No one even watched the ten o’clock hour, let alone what went before. A pity. This is too important an election to switch off.

I’m still somewhat in shock at the first night of the Democratic Convention. I kept thinking I was at a Republican convention. Tightly scripted, elegantly choreographed, seamlessly on the centrist message of war, unity, maturity and judgment. Foreign policy was front and center; faith was showcased; military service was held up as the ideal; prudent leadership was touted in a time of “peril,” in Hillary’s word. I wonder if they can keep this up. But I’m amazed they’ve tried. I’ve been writing for months now that Kerry’s most effective message would be that he’d conduct the war on terror with more allies and more wisdom than Bush. But I never actually believed he’d be canny enough to do exactly that. But he has! If the first night is any indicator, the Democrats have played the smartest, strongest card of the campaign so far. First off, they put 9/11 front and foremost, insisting that this is their catastrophe too, and the center of their concerns as well. A vital move. And it was done movingly and well. I had a catch in my throat as “Amazing Grace” struck up, and another as I absorbed the fact that a Muslim-American and a Jewish-American had just joined in tribute to the murdered. Ironic, isn’t it, that the Republican convention was placed in New York in early September precisely to evoke memories of 9/11, and yet, by coming first, the Democrats may have dented that advantage with their innovative commemmoration. And the 9/11 set-piece dealt with a deeper problem as well. It is a feature of incumbency during moments and periods of trauma that the president inevitably becomes associated with the national expressions of grief, determination, unity. By the same token, the opposition, especially one that comes to question the conduct of the war, may come to find itself disassociated. Last night, the Democrats did all they could to erase and undo that impression. Rhetorically, at least, they were saying: this is our war too. But we can pursue it more wisely and effectively than the well-meaning hothead now in office. And there was a subtler message as well. Remember when we were one as a nation? Do you really think that president Bush is capable of bringing any of us together again? Of course, some Democrats are responsible for exactly that polarization. But it’s nevertheless a smart move to portray themselves as a unifying future compared to the divisive past.

The cultural signals were superbly done as well. Kerry’s former boatmate touched on faith and courage and the military, as well as implicitly evoking Kerry as a unifying figure. I lost count of the number of times John Kerry’s possibly future title was described as “commander-in-chief.” We were constantly reminded that Kerry would attack in his aluminum boat, rather than be merely defensive. Jimmy Carter’s speech was one of the best I’ve ever heard from him; and the genius of it was that Carter went against type. He re-introduced himself as a navy veteran, and was most effective mentioning those presidents who had actually been in the military: Eisenhower and Truman, under whom Carter served. Now listen to this passage:

Today — today our Democratic Party is led by another former naval officer, one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty — and he served with honor and distinction. He also knows the horrors of war and the responsibilities of leadership. And I am confident that next January he would restore the judgment and maturity to our government that nowadays is sorely lacking.

Kerry showed up. Kerry is as tough as Bush – but with “judgment and maturity.” And in case you didn’t get the message: “The biggest reason to make John Kerry president is even more important. It is to safeguard the security of our nation.” From a former president, that’s tough stuff; and Carter delivered an attack-speech that was all the more effective for being measured and often damning by mere inference. Less, someone has finally figured out, is more. (Of course, I’m leaving aside here the sheer chutzpah of Jimmy Carter giving anyone lessons on defending this country, or, for that matter, fighting the war on terror. My point is merely that Carter sketched exactly the centrist-conservative narrative that the campaign is obviously trying to portray. And it worked.)

TO THE RIGHT OF BUSH: For the Democrats to run to the right of Bush on the war – while leaving behind the question of whether the war in Iraq was right or not – is their only hope of victory, but also, oddly enough, the most direct path to victory. They also evoked the anxiety many Americans have that, in a time of war, they are so reviled around the world. Americans are prepared to fight alone, but they’d prefer not to. Carter spoke to those anxieties:

After 9/11, America stood proud, wounded but determined and united. A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world.
But in just 34 months we have watched with deep concern as all this good will has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations.

If you’re a worried undecided voter, you may nott agree with all that. But you’ll be troubled by enough of it to consider Kerry. And then there was the gut-punch: the indirect use of Bush’s dubious National Guard service. In fact, the way in which the Democrats used the service record of Kerry against Bush was straight out of the Republican playbook. It’s a pretty low blow, and Carter delivered it with a deep thud. When you describe someone as weak on defense and a draft-dodger, you’re usually a Republican. But not this time.

Carter’s was the better speech, but Clinton was magnificent. I think he was better last night than at either of his own conventions and certainly better than any of his SOTUs. He performed a brilliant rhetorical trick: he deployed the usual canards used against him to buttress Kerry. Rather than attack the wealthy as recjpients of tax cuts, he attacked himself as a now-wealthy man. And then the coup de grace: he put himself and Bush in the same camp as draft-dodgers, in stark comparison to the patriotic Kerry! My jaw was on the floor at that point in a mixture of admiration and horror. But it was mighty effective. And the way in which he described the cost of the tax cut in terms of squandered attempts to improve homeland defense was another smart move. Use the Republican tax cut issue against the Republican security issue. Wedge against them for once. If the constitution didn’t prevent it, the man would still be president. After last night’s speech, you can see why.

THE PANS: Yes, there were some duds. Whose great idea was it to have Glenn Close as a speaker? She’s an actress! And she even flubbed her lines. Oh and Tammy Baldwyn and Barbara Mikulski make the dullest femme and butch act I’ve ever seen. Hillary was pedestrian, as always.

BUSH LOSES MINORITIES: Here’s an interesting nugget of polling. After three years, George W. Bush has lost some appeal among minorities and become a much more exclusively white evangelical president. here’s the Annenberg data:

As the Democratic National Convention begins, 66 percent of African-American registered voters called themselves Democrats and just 7 percent say they are Republicans, numbers almost unchanged since 2000, when it was 65 to 7 percent. Among registered Hispanics, Democrats now outnumber Republicans 45 to 24 percent, compared to a 39 to 21 percent margin in 2000.
But among registered white Protestants who described themselves as born-again or evangelical – a share of the population bigger than blacks and Hispanics together — Republicans now enjoy majority status. Fifty-one percent of this group called themselves Republicans, while 22 percent said they were Democrats. Four years ago, 43 percent said they were Republicans and 24 percent said they were Democrats.
Seventy-one percent of registered white evangelical and born-again Christians now view Bush favorably and just 19 percent see him unfavorably, up from 63 percent favorable, 19 percent unfavorable in 2000. That ratio is reversed among African-Americans, where 12 percent view Bush favorably and 72 percent unfavorably. In July of 2000, 34 percent had a favorable view and just 40 percent an unfavorable opinion.

It’s important to understand that this was a deliberate choice by Rove: to increase the base before you reach out to others. He has been successful. And Bush may lose because of it.

“I am not sure you understand your critics. As a longtime reader (and future reader), I am scratching my head at your endorsement of Kerry. Not because you are wrong on your criticisms of Bush (I may disagree, but not substantially so), but where does President Kerry make anything better? Even on gay rights: do you think that gay rights will become better/worse no matter who is President? If Bush is elected the Senate will prevent any backsliding on rights, and the same Senate will not allow Kerry (if he were inclined – which he is not) to promote a “pro-gay rights” agenda. This effectively becomes a non-issue, so base your vote on something – anything – else.
Beyond that, the war on terror, government spending, free trade – pick one any one. I just cannot see Kerry as an improvement. Maybe the argument is that Kerry will be a Clinton and the fight against a Republican Congress will prevent the government from doing anything dumb, but then put your blame on the shoulders of the men and women who deserve it – the senators and congressmen and women.
Just call me an ABK – “Anyone But Kerry” voter – disappointed in the President’s abandonment of conservative ideals, but knowing the alternative is a heck of a lot worse.” I take these points. and that’s why I haven’t said I’m endorsing Kerry – despite all the hyperventilating on some hard-right sites. But I’m open to being persuaded and, given the nation-building challenges of the next few years, and Bush’s obvious inability to master the art, I’m not sure Kerry would be such a disaster in the war. As for free trade, I think it’s a wash. Same with the deficit, although I think Kerry won’t get his healthcare proposal through and so might be better than Bush. Government spending? If the House stays Republican, Kerry will be much better than Bush.

Now why doesn’t Postrel grace the op-ed columns of the NYT? Postrel versus Ehrenreich: two women columnists who don’t do chick lit.

I’ll be instapunditing tonight and every night of the DNC shindig. And please hit the tip-jar to keep the blog alive.

THE SLIMING OF ARMSTRONG: It’s not only the French.

Responds to Michael Moore. “Fahrenheit 9/11” is having a devastating effect on morale. Which was, of course, the point.

Since I’m getting swamped by emails lambasting me for leaning toward giving Kerry a shot, it may be worth defending myself from the assertion encapsulated by the following email:

Why don’t you just admit it Andrew? Whom ever supports Gay marriage can count on your support.

Of course, John Kerry doesn’t support marriage rights for gay people. And in 2000, George W. Bush, whom I endorsed, didn’t support equal marriage rights. I haven’t noticed my supporting Al Sharpton or Dennic Kucinich on those lines either. The notion that someone who has views about a whole host of topics and who has backed both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush for the presidency is some kind of one-issue voter strikes me as deeply unfair. But telling. I should say up-front that, of course, the president’s support for the most extreme measure imaginable on the issue of marriage – a constitutional amendment – has obviously affected my view of him. The fact that he did so without even attempting to explain himself to the gay community or even his gay supporters merely compounded it. Many of you think it’s no big deal, and you’re entitled to believe that. For someone who has spent much of his adult life arguing for gay equality and for gay inclusion in the Republican party, it obviously is a big deal. How could it not be? If Bush favored an amendement restrcting the rights of, say, Catholics, would anyone be surprised if a Catholic decided not to support him on that basis? Would the blame be assigned to the voter or the president? The very notion that a gay person should simply acquiesce in the FMA is itself an expression of prejudice against gay people and the legitimacy of their aspirations and beliefs.

MANY ISSUES ANDREW: But, of course, my concerns about Bush are emphatically not merely related to the marriage issue. The blog speaks for itself on this – over the last few years. From the minute Baghdad fell, I expressed concern about hubris and chaos. At the first sign of fiscal disaster, I called Bush to account for his spending policies. As a cultural liberal, I’m obviously alienated by Bush’s embrace of everything and anything James Dobson says. As a believer in free trade, I was offended by steel tariffs; as a federalist, I was appalled by his incursion on states’ rights, from marriage to marijuana; as a balanced-budget conservative, I was horrified by the president’s insouciance toward deficits and expansion of entitlements; as a strong believer in the moral superiority of American values, Abu Ghraib was an indelible lapse, however effectively it is white-washed by the Defense Department. Does all this represent a capitulation to the “left”? On all these matters, I’d argue that my core principles remain unchanged. Should the war trump every other issue? In some ways, yes. But, as I have argued, I’m not sure that the choice is as stark as some want to make it out to be. I have yet to discern a distinction between Bush’s and Kerry’s Iran policy, for example. If our major unfinished task is “nation-building,” I’m not convinced Kerry would be much worse than Bush. And Bush’s errors – the WMD debacle, for example – have definitely made him less effective on the world stage. No British prime minister will go out on a limb for an American president in the foreseeable future. Pre-emption has been largely discredited – by Bush himself. When I listen to the president on the war, I am heartened by his support for democracy. I take back not a word of praise for his conduct after 9/11 and during the buildup to the Iraq war. But I think he has shown himself to be at worst incompetent and at best feckless in many aspects of the conduct of the war at a time when such lapses are unforgivable. All this leads me to look at the alternative. Heaven knows I have been critical of Kerry. But I want to give him a chance. So sue me. I know in this polarized climate, such indecision is rare and punished. But it’s my best take on what’s going on. And the joy of a blog is that I can simply write that – and let the chips fall where they may.

The good news is that our traffic keeps going up. The bad news is that our bandwidth costs have also risen, and although I was hoping to go a full year without asking for more support, the site needs some extra cash to keep going at least until the election. If you read this site regularly and have never contributed, please take a moment to send $20 or more our way. If you have contributed in the past, please help us again with another donation. We’ve deliberately kept this site reader-supported, because the community of readers it now sustains is, to my mind, its greatest asset. You can see that from the Letters Page, where I am regularly corrected, rebutted and challenged by some of the smartest readers on the web. The blog is also, of course, hard work. This year alone, I’ve written 300,000 words for the site, provided hundreds of links, comments, provocations, and written morning, noon and deep into the night to keep the site up to date. I don’t expect to get paid at the same rates as I do for other work, but I do need to keep the site financed without dipping into my own pockets, and a small stipend for the work involved strikes me as a fair bargain. I know I’ve annoyed lots of you this year, but that’s what independent writers do. It’s what a blog allows for a writer – the space to challenge partisan boundaries where other sites will not. So please take a moment to keep this blog – and its community of readers – alive and well and poised for one of the most interesting campaigns of my lifetime. Click here to contribute.

HBO VERSUS BUSH: An emailer wrotes:

The past two episodes of “Six Feet Under” on HBO (July 18 and 25) included several anti-Bush lines spoken by the performers, plus a prominent product placement for an anti-Republican book. None of these occurences advanced a story line or character; they were gratuitous throwaways.
Here, as best as I can recollect, is what I saw:
In the July 18 episode, Nat is reading the paper, and says (paraphrasing), “Man that Bush just lies and lies and nobody does anything about it.” His mother Ruth responds only by addressing his recent bitterness. The political angle never comes up again.
Until the July 25th episode. This time it’s Ruth’s husband George, reading “Perfectly Legal,” a book by a New York Times reporter claiming that the super-rich gouge the middle class. As he puts the book down he says (paraphrasing), “They’re just hollowing out the middle class until there’s nobody left.” Later in the episode he’s seen reading the book again. Nothing else in these scenes addresses this activity.
In the same episode, Claire and her friends create art on the walls of her room, making several comments along the lines of “dropping bombs and calling it peace,” and painting the phrase “Terror Starts at Home” on the wall.
Here’s the ironic thing about this kind of stealth political campaigning: it’s easier to follow the money behind it than in the more up-front kind.

But I also have the feeling this stuff just washes off an audience – especially one sophisticated enough to enjoy “Six Feet Under.”