Sorry, Rush

Richelieu games the day’s voting:

Obama is moving up and up, ever since South Carolina and Teddy K. He is now tied in most national polls. If he wins New Jersey in Hillary’s backyard, wins the popular vote in CA, and comes closer in NY than she does in Illinois – all likely in my view – he’ll be the new frontrunner…

Lots of talk in the media about McCain vs. The Mighty Wombats of Talk Radio. Ask President Tancredo about that one. The talkers can raise an issue to prominence, they can entertain, but they do not really deliver actual votes. Sorry Rush.

I’m sure Obama will do well – but I fear he cannot surpass expectations of a small national lead. The question today is whether her victories are too crushing for Obama to come back on February 12.

The Delegates Game

While we essentially wait … MoJo’s blog has some interesting data on the strange delegate process in both parties. Among the Dems:

Districts which, through the quirks of state party rules, have five delegates will give three to the winner and two to the loser in even a 51/49 split of the popular vote.

Among the Republicans, the rules

put Romney at a severe disadvantage, primarily because Mike Huckabee is expected to contend strongly in the South. If Romney takes a close second to McCain in New York and New Jersey and takes a close second to Huckabee in Missouri and West Virginia, he will get zero delegates. Under the Democratic rules, he’d still be very much in the game.

And it reflects on the core traits of the parties: stupidly fair and aggressively macho.
 

A Boomer For Obama

Z214

A reader writes:

You’re right: the Grateful Dead just trumped your Atlantic cover essay – at least in part. You said in that essay that in electing Obama we will finally, thankfully, be leaving the stale culture wars of the Boomer generation behind. I get your point, but as one of those reviled Boomers, all I can tell you is: Wrong. Barack and Michelle Obama are the inspiration we horrible liberals had when we were young, the inspiration that was cut down in its prime and replaced with creeping mediocrity and worse (ever notice the cast of "Nixon" bears a remarkable resemblance to the cast of "Bush II"?)

I remember exactly where I was when I heard JFK had been assassinated: seventh grade, junior high school. I remember the desk, the room, the principal’s voice on the PA system. I remember nothing else about that year, but I remember that moment photographically, as clearly as if it had happened yesterday. Only now, looking back from so many years, and older now than my folks were then, do I realize what I subconsciously felt at that moment: it was as if my own father, a WWII vet and JFK’s age, and that entire generation, had somehow been assaulted, cut down in their prime. I still feel that way today. Something did happen to them, and to us, and to our country that day. It has nothing to do with party–Dad was a life-long Republican. It has to do with something deeper.

By the time Martin Luther King was assassinated, I was a senior in high school, and becoming socially and politically aware. King’s assassination seemed of a piece with Kennedy’s to me, the next ugly chapter in the reactionary response to the vast sweeping change they represented. I went to hear Robert Kennedy speak at our local University on April 29, three weeks after King was shot. Bobby was on a campaign swing through Indiana for the primary, but I neither knew nor cared about primaries. Something in my inchoate teenage mind simply wanted to hear that the dream was not dead. I was in the same shoes then that so many young people are today with Obama: insulted by years of moral and political abuse, lies and war and bigotry and shame for my country–and I wanted something better.

A month later, Bobby was dead too.

My nascent political worldview was formed by those experiences: there was a progressive force in our country, and a reactionary one. The forces of reaction would stop at nothing, including murder, to stop progressive change. Of course I realized there was no connection between the three assassinations–except there was. There was something in the air, or rather under the surface, some dark unconscious collective force–the American shadow. Read the history of that time as prose, and this take on causality seems ridiculous, if not paranoid: given the three completely unconnected assassins–two of whom apparently acted alone–you have nothing more here than random coincidence. Read it as poetry, though, with the heart, and you understand there is no coincidence. Both views, of course, are true.

What happened then–the decapitation of the progressive liberal force in this country, just as it’s next generation was reaching adulthood–has everything to do with Obama today. He’s the dream deferred, the inheritor of myth. So the Grateful Dead will play for him on Monday, and I will vote for him on Tuesday, not to bypass something we Boomers started–because believe me, we did not start the great divide–but to finish the battle we began then and fulfill what was always, always our dream–the same dream that we are dreaming today, and that Barack and Michelle describe so eloquently every time they speak: justice, unity, freedom–not as abstract principles, but as real, on-the-ground, shared American realities. It’s been a long time coming.

In fact, I will say it’s Barack and Michelle who are the real conservatives–the ones who are conserving the core American dream, the core American values. 90% of the crap that passes as "conservatism" today is nothing more than that same reactionary nightmare we suffered through in the 60’s, whose roots go back into the Civil War and beyond, and whose latest generations of practitioners have done all they could these past many years to quash the liberal impulse. The genius of Obama–and it is a spiritual genius–is he quiets that old nightmare. He lifts us beyond. He wakes us up, brings us together–the true opposite to Bush and Rove, who drove us deeper into drugged sleep and division, day by day. That was your point in "Goodbye to All That", and it was well said. But don’t blame the Boomers–left or right–for a war that’s been going on forever. And don’t underestimate the sleeping giant we Boomers–especially we liberal Boomers–represent. We have not forgotten our dreams.

(Photo: a still from the Zapruder video of the JFK assassination.)

Malkin Award Nominee

"Many conservatives believe that the key question in this election is: Are there to be two multiculturalist open-borders parties or one? … Any bill similar to the senator’s “comprehensive” immigration reform would accelerate the GOP’s relative demographic decline by creating new voters overwhelmingly likely to vote Democrat in a quicker time scale. This dominant Democratic majority would emerge fully only after a hypothetical President McCain left office, but its approach would cloud the future of every other Republican incumbent," – John O’Sullivan.

Is John saying that conservatism is an inherently racial or cultural phenomenon that future Hispanic-Americans will be unable to support? I don’t see why that should be the case. The United States, meanwhile, is a multi-cultural nation, in case John hasn’t noticed. That’s part of its strength. And neither party favors "open borders" by any stretch of the imagination. There is a pessimism bordering on despair among conservatives right now that is as vexing as it is self-defeating. It does not bode well for a potential McCain presidency.

The Deadheads And Turnout: Uh-Oh

A reader writes:

This Grateful Dead concert is not good news for Obama. Given one last chance to hear the Dead, even without Jerry Garcia, many, many fans will take this opportunity to embark on the magical mystery tour just one more time.  And you know what that means – low turnout on Tuesday.  At the last free Dead concert I attended, albeit many years ago, purchase of a t-shirt got you a hit of very pure windowpane. When I left the concert at five in the morning, well, not even the opportunity to vote for the Resurrected Christ could have kept me from my bed for the next 14 hours.

Hey guys, if you’re reading this right now: get out and vote.

A Paleocon vs McCain

Justin Raimondo, in The American Conservative, attacks McCain on foreign policy:

It is impossible to know what is in McCain’s heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition. This was the case in 1983, when he defied the Reagan administration over sending U.S. soldiers to die at the hands of a Beirut suicide bomber, and in 1999, when the cry went up to take on Slobodan Milosevic. He was positioning himself against his own party, while staking out a distinctive stance independent of the Democrats. It was, in short, an instance of a presidential candidate maneuvering himself to increase his appeal to the electorate—and, most importantly, the media. […]

Other politicians were transformed by 9/11. McCain was unleashed. His strategy of “rogue state rollback” was exactly what the neoconservatives in the Bush administration had in mind, and yet, ever mindful to somehow stand out from the pack while still going along with the program, the senator took umbrage at Rumsfeld’s apparent unwillingness to chew up the U.S. military in an endless occupation. He publicly dissented from the “light footprint” strategy championed by the Department of Defense. More troops, more force, more of everything—that is McCain’s solution to every problem in our newly conquered province.

McCain’s emergence will either forge a new Republican foreign policy consensus, or blow the whole apparatus apart. A post-Bush Iraq occupation will be a fascinating thing for the GOP to grapple with.

Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

Your post "Blogging for Power" is either disingenuous or simply naive. Of course power motivates you to write on politics, whether you’re conscious of it or not. You influence hundreds of thousands of readers on a daily basis, and, yes, that does influence elections. You’ve practically been Obama-central in the blogosphere: if there’s an important piece of Obama news, you’ll have posted it within an hour or two. Your article, "Goodbye To All That," seems to have played a major role in persuading many opinion-makers that Obama’s time is now.

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche recognized The Will to Power didn’t need self-consciousness to achieve its ends; perhaps self-consciousness just gets in the way. They also recognized that Power is not a function of the human ego, but a shaper of it.  Humans are will-to-power beings in the same way we’re sexual beings.  Power is intrinsic.

Why don’t you just admit it, Andrew?  Where’s the shame in it? Do you really believe your passionately biased take on everything Clinton isn’t driven by a force larger than mere psychology or random preference?

At the risk of some self-psychoanalysis, I disagree. Sometimes, I feel much happier when my views or arguments are thoroughly rejected, rather than accepted. In fact, I often get queasy at the thought of getting yes for an answer. And so I hide behind the Nietzschean mask of mere self-expression. Forgive me for needing it.

Against Healthcare Mandates

An elegantly persuasive post from Reihan. Money quote:

Some say, “we do it with car insurance!” Regulating automobiles, which involve a dense web of surveillance, regular registration, etc., is a piece of cake in comparison. Your right to drive can be revoked. What do you do to an incorrigible skinflint who refuses to buy health insurance?

The ongoing revolution in the biosciences makes these questions mostly moot. We are arguing about building a coercive apparatus to solve a social problem that won’t exist in the same form for very long. But of course that coercive apparatus will never go away.