The Weakness Of McCain

Yes, the Democrats are tearing themselves apart. Yes, he just gave an excellent speech on foreign policy. He’s still got a mountain to climb this fall. My column in the Sunday Times here. Iraq is his main but not only problem:

It’s hard to see how the US surge of troops in Iraq helps him in November, whatever happens. If troops cannot be withdrawn for fear of all-out civil war, if violence is back up after a lull, the surge may appear as digging a deeper ditch for America to get out of. McCain will seem like Bush, the Sequel. If, on the other hand, Iraq has calmed, the risk of a young, inexperienced bridge-builder such as Obama may seem less serious.

It’s lose-lose for McCain. If another serious attack hits the mainland, or if a miracle happens in Iraq, he may still have a chance. But he is a war candidate; that’s his brand. And war is currently deeply unpopular.

The polls, moreover, show the economy emerging as the major issue of the campaign. Even McCain admits he is uninterested in economics. He admirably rejects the easy impulse to use taxpayers’ money to bail out the reckless lenders and borrowers of the real-estate bubble. But this is not exactly popular in the distressed heartland. And Obama has been slowly learning how to address these issues.

On two critical narratives, an Obama-McCain match-up is tough for McCain. One voted against an unpopular war; the other supported both the invasion and the surge. One will be 72; the other will be 47. The narrative will not be age as such; it will be the future versus the past. Americans are future-oriented people – and this election so far has disproved the usual truth that the next generation does not vote. If Obama is the nominee, there will be a tsunami of a youth and black vote, the likes of which America has not seen since the 1960s.

Penn Out, Update

Crowley on the news:

Questions: Was he pushed or did he jump? (Is it possible Penn decided Hillary’s chances are too slim to keep sacrificing his corporate work?) What does this mean for the campaign’s strategy? (Penn was always a proponent of leadership and experience themes, Wolfson has historically been more keen to humanize her.)

Ambers:

That Mark Penn would one day step aside from the Clinton campaign has been, as they say in sociology, overdetermined for a while.

The Spiritual Side Of Atheism

Hyacinths

I finally read Hitch’s book on God a little while before my breather. I’m relieved to say I liked it much more than I was expecting to. A huge amount of his criticism of organized religion over the centuries is surely valid. I feel no hesitation in agreeing. And for all the amusing contempt Hitch pours on people of faith, there is in the book a truth-seeking gene that all genuinely religious people should welcome. Sam Harris is even more compelling an atheist to me, because of his obvious fascination with meditation, consciousness and truth. I’m not the only one to notice Sam’s spiritual side – he is, in fact, one of the more self-evidently spiritual people I’ve ever met. Here’s Stafford Betty in the Jesuit magazine, America:

Harris has kept company with contemplatives, men and women who know how to stop the whir of their own thoughts and tiptoe into an awareness that completely transcends their own puny egos. Paul Tillich called this the ground of being, and contemporary Buddhist writers, with whom Harris is in particular sympathy, use that phrase too. What does this ground of being feel like? Catholic mystics like Father Keating and Bede Griffiths, O.S.B., conceive of it as a joyous, compassionate, loving, powerful, boundless, light-filled reality that can be known intimately in the private sanctuary of their own mind. Leading American Buddhist teachers like Surya Das and Thubten Chodron would not disagree. Would Harris object to such a conception?

Given his openness to the life of the deep mind (shall we call it the spirit?), I do not see why he should. It avoids the following pitfalls. It does not define God in a way that invites logical problems when we try to square God’s existence with evil, and it does not place God on the outskirts of Uranus far removed from the human heart. It does not insist on God’s being a person like us, a kind of overgrown superego, but it does not make God into some sort of impersonal energy either. However one defines God in the last analysis, the God we are looking at grows directly out of deep meditative experience. It reserves the first chair for the experiencer, not the system-builder. Harris, I believe, would approve.

More than he might readily admit.

Death By Blogging?

I can’t be the only blogger who recognized a few home truths from this piece. And taking a week off the blog certainly underlined how addictive and compulsive and draining it can be. It’s as much like detox as vacation. You stop blogging and it’s not as if you can start reading books. You just need a rest from all words and arguments for a while. Music helps; walks; dancing; sleeping; movies; beagles: anything but words. And then there’s the regaining of personal space. It’s a queer thing – in the older sense of queer – to rarely have a thought unexpressed, an observation not noted. And it’s not good for the soul. The physical hazards of blogging are nothing compared to the spiritual ones.

All of which is throat-clearing to say a public thanks to Patrick for doing such a diligent, wide-ranging, eclectic job of keeping the Dish al dente for seven days. Over the last year and a bit at the Atlantic, I’ve been able to bring interns and support to the blog and Patrick is now the veteran of the alums. He helps daily, hourly, and through the weekends. It also happens that I seem to have come down with some kind of flu/fever bout just as I was about to start back up tonight, so I’ve asked Patrick to co-blog with me for a few days until I feel back to normal. His posts will be marked with his signature, mine as normal. I’ll be bed-blogging, but might take a while to get back to the normal pace. Thanks for the break.