A Friend of Bill

In Chicago, I was driven around by the same guy who drove me around for "Virtually Normal." His name is Bill Young, a real mid-westerner, and an all-round great guy. He has shepherded them all in his time – from Marilyn Quayle to Al Gore. But he means a lot to me. Eleven years ago, he picked me up in Milwaukee, when I resumed my book tour after a five day break in the first week when one of my dearest friends died suddenly of AIDS. He was 31. I tell the story in "Love Undetectable". I was beyond numb.

Bill knew the deal, and basically nursed me through the first few days of media blitz. His Midwestern gentleness and humor put me back on my feet. It was a strange shock to see his name again on the schedule; and a huge pleasure to be with him for a few hours. We swapped jokes, caught up on each others’ lives, and had a ridiculously huge meal at one of the biggest Mickey Ds I’ve ever seen. I had a super-sized Big Mac, fries, regular coke and a chocolate milk shake. He had a McFlurry. Screw it.

Anyway, he has a saying. It’s worth passing on:

"Strive for excellence. Ignore success."

Words to live by. I love the Midwest.

Reynolds’ Lame Excuses

Glenn Reynolds tries to extricate himself from one of the lamest piece of partisan rationalization I’ve read in a long time. My advice to Glenn: when you’re in a hole, stop digging. My post was based on his own stated reasons for voting. And I stand by it. So Reynolds now has another stab. He says a libertarian would have supported Corker over Ford in the Tennessee race. Here’s why:

Ford voted for the detainee military commissions bill, which Sullivan regards as anathema. And he took a hard-line stance on immigration. As for spending and pork, which Sullivan also mentions, both Ford and his opponent, Bob Corker, say they support spending reforms, porkbusters, and increased transparency. Ford also supports public display of the ten commandments, a ban on flag burning, and says he’s closer to Bush than McCain on military interrogations.

So is Reynolds saying that Corker is more libertarian than Ford on these issues? That’s the only relevant question when picking between the two of them on libertarian grounds, and Reynolds ducks it again. By the way, I am not enthusiastic about Ford and have never said such a thing. But Reynolds is adept at putting words in other people’s mouths. Then there’s this:

As for the "outing" business, I’ll admit that Republicans run on opposition to gay marriage, etc. – but so do Democrats (see John Kerry and Ford, above). And deliberately targeting individuals’ sex lives as a form of political blackmail seems to me to be nastier than policy positions with which, alas, most Americans agree.

Again: Pathetic. The difference between the GOP and the Dems on gay issues nationally is vast, as Glenn knows. Choosing Republicans over Dems if you are a single issue voter on gay matters means your partisanship has warped your judgment beyond measure, as, in Reynolds case, it has for a very long time.

The Heartland Versus Bush?

I had a public conversation last Saturday in Madison, Wisconsin, about conservatism and the elections with NPR’s Steve Paulson and Brian Mann in a theater. Mann’s new book, "Welcome to the Homeland" is a guide to the reality of rural America and its emerging political power. I was so impressed with his knowledge and insight I’ve already dug in to the book and recommend it. One of the things Mann emphasizes is how the electoral college and the Senate strongly favor rural areas over urban ones in American politics and how the Republican gerrymandering of the past decade or so has accentuated this still further by wedging in small majorities of rural voters in seats that might otherwise be dominated by suburban and urban (i.e. Democratic) voters. The appeal to the rural vote is critical to the Bush-Rove Welcometothehomeland Republican party, which is why they have abandoned trying to persuade the suburban middle classes and devoted most of their resources to appealing to the rural vote on hot button social issues – abortion, same-sex unions – and on patriotic values, like war and terror. The key to the narrow Republican victories in the past three election cycles has been increasing turnout among these voters. Bush and Rove haven’t persuaded, in other words. They’ve mobilized.

This is familiar ground, But Mann fills it with impressive detail and nuance. And he makes a further point. If these rural voters were to abandon the current GOP, or stay home in sizable numbers, then the entire strategy collapses. Many, many more seats would fall to the Dems than most of us now expect. Republicans have lost a lot of support in the suburbs and cities this past decade and a half – making them more than ever dependent on the rural base and exurbs. The Foley affair has rattled this base in many ways. But the key issue that keeps them in the fold is the war. Rural voters with deep traditional values often send a disproportionate share of soldiers to defend all of us. Their sacrifice is inspiring. But if the hard truth of this war – and the appalling way in which it has been handled – were to seriously sink in with the rural community, the payback could be huge.

Right now, they are there with the president, proud, patriotic, and every casualty another reason to "stay the course" – in part to honor the fallen. The real reason Bush cannot level with Americans about the actual state of the war is that it would mean that this argument implodes. It would mean that thousands of rural sons and daughters have lost their lives or been seriously wounded because of Bush’s incompetence, arrogance and fecklessness. That is too much for many to admit right now. They are too emotionally committed to victory. It is hard to believe that your son or daughter died for a cause this president bungled. And so they buckle under, do their duty, and keep the faith. And their motives in this are good and honorable.

But if the facade cracks, if these rural voters begin to believe they have been misled, or their president has been criminally negligent in the conduct of this war, then the rock-solid patriotic support could become something else. It would not fade into indifference. It could turn in an instant into rage. That’s why Bush cannot concede real error. It might please people like me, but it would tell the rural base that their enormous sacrifices have been in vain. And so he will wait till after the election to tell the whole truth. It’s shrewd, smart politics – but morally and ethically of a piece with this man’s record.