The Dish

You might have missed this nugget from this morning's Dish, but it's been floating around my frontal cortex this afternoon. Do the math in any state: compare the proportion of whites among seniors to the proportion of whites among children. The bigger the gulf, the likelier the kind of cultural and social panic you see from exactly the demographic that watches FNC and supports the Tea Party. This doesn't mean all FNC watchers or Tea Partiers fall into this syndrome, but when it comes to immigration, it's a fascinating dynamic.

I see the rise of religious fundamentalism and the emergence of purely symbolic, policy-free movements to "take our country back" as partly psychological expressions of loss in the face of modernity's complexity and diversity. And I think a core divide within conservatism today is between those conservatives who have an Oakeshottian/Burkean view of the necessity and adventure of social change and those who have a Thomist/Straussian view of timeless, eternal truths and cultures that must be defended in every single respect against their enemies. 

Of course, I believe that the Burkean view – that societies must change in order to stay the same – the most persuasive if polities and countries are to remain coherent. That's why I see marriage equality, for example, as a classic Burkean adaptation of existing institutions to new social forces. But the opposite view – I'd call it reactionary, not conservative, but that's an argument for another day – is often stronger, because it draws on deeper emotional roots.

Fear usually defeats nerve. My view is that conservatism as a pragmatic, practical political philosophy is about nerve – having it, and soothing them. Hence Obama, the Burkean.

Eric Kleefeld reads a new poll:

McCain's approval rating is only 34%, with 55% disapproval. Back in September, when the last PPP numbers from Arizona were taken, McCain was in positive territory at 48%-42%. McCain's approval among Republicans is only 48%-39%, with a much lower 28%-58% among independents, and 21%-71% with Democrats.

But he's still way ahead of Hayworth.

Derek Thompson has a rough transcript from a Bill Clinton speech:

"The burdens of the last decade's economic downturn was basically on white male high school grads, or who didn't graduate from high school or a couple years of college, who got shivered in this economy. Their taxes can be lower if we get more taxpayers. The changes we make will be less draconian if we get more people into the system. I don't think there's any alternative than to increase immigration. I don't see any kinda way out of this unless that's part of the strategy."

The Bank of England governor is right. The real truth of the British election is that all three major parties are engaging in massive fiscal dishonesty. Only the Tories have grappled with reality when they summoned up the guts last fall to propose and describe the vast and deep cuts in public spending required to prevent Britain becoming another Greece. But as soon as this burst of honesty and candor emerged, the Tories started to slide in the polls and then partially reversed themselves, pledging to enact relatively piddling cuts if they win power, while leaving all the major fiscal drains, especially the National Health Service, intact.

That's why this is as much a phony election as it is a riveting one.

The Lib-Dems are actually offering huge tax cuts (with spending cuts delayed until a recovery is robust). Labour acted like Bush Republicans in exploding the debt in good times (yes, Blair and Bush were closer domestically on fiscal issues than either would care to admit). The Tories know they are going to have to be Thatcherite but can't dare claim her still-unpopular mantle (the Brits, in my opinion, are an electorally ungrateful lot. Just ask Churchill.).

And so whoever wins this election will inherit the kind of crisis Obama inherited, but without the dynamism of the US labor markets and the sine qua non of a reserve global currency. It's gonna be brutal. Which is why sharing some of the blame in a coalition government – between Tories and Lib-Dems – may actually appeal privately to Clegg and Cameron more than they are likely to say so in public.

(For the third time, I'll be live-blogging the final British debate this afternoon. I'll also be on BBC America tonight discussing it.)

Peter Robins tries to recall published fiction that resembles this year's race for Downing Street.

Canadian Omar Khadr has not shown up for his military commission. Complaining of pain in the eye he lost while being captured, he refuses to be transported because he won't wear the absurd and disgusting Padilla-style ear-muffs and eye-goggles to keep him blind and deaf in transit (see above). The truck that would transport him has no windows anyway, but he is still required to wear the total sensory deprivation gear. His quote:

“The only purpose is to humiliate me.”

Who can doubt him? The Cheney sadism endures. To Obama's shame.

Reihan, long-time Crist critic, couldn't be happier that Crist has left the GOP. Worth reading in full.

Monkton, Vermont, 9.30 am

Here's something the Christianist right won't bring up in the immigration debate (although they often refer to it when it comes to marriage equality). Leviticus:

Also see:

Leviticus 19:33

Exodus 22:21

Exodus 23:9

Deuteronomy 24:17-18

Leviticus 19:9-10

Deuteronomy 24:19-22

Deuteronomy 10:18-19

Hebrews 13:2

Goldberg is dressed up in the woods in a 1771 puffy shirt and breeches. The Dish will do anything (well, almost anything) to get a pic.