The Dish

The current GOP has a problem:

As Ron Paul himself has pointed out many times, his campaign didn’t do anything to organize support on the Internet.  That’s not how it works. 

What happens is that millions of people independently come to the same conclusion that there is something wrong with the System and that it needs to change.  Then they start organizing on their own, and rally behind candidates who best represent their views.  The organizing is bottom-up, not top-down. 

Non-Paul Republicans can’t tap into that because their entire political model is authoritarian:  "We report, we decide."  That model appeals only to passive-minded people, and passive-minded people aren’t inclined to self-organize. 

I wonder if Obama’s and Paul’s amazing web success is a harbinger of a more libertarian and self-empowered political culture – because the web does not reward obedience, submission, or authoritarianism. It saddens me a great deal to see conservatism in America increasingly lean toward top-down, authoritarian, fear-based politics. In its best incarnation, conservatism is about self-government, individual freedom and hope-based politics. It’s about trusting people, not corralling them. In  this, the web is the right’s natural ally, and it’s a very telling sign of American conservatism’s decadence that it doesn’t get the Internet as effectively as others.

McCain’s performance on the Daily Show and his remarks today are, in word, slimy. Here’s the gist:

"It’s very obvious to everyone that Senator Obama shares nothing of the values or goals of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization," McCain said. "But it’s also a fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama’s candidacy. I think that’s of interest to the American people."

The right answer is that nominees for president do not legitimize the attempts of foreign terrorist groups to intervene in American elections. But what’s galling here is the Clintonian passive-aggressive pose: I’m not saying it, but the "America people" are "interested". It’s a way to peddle slime while pretending that you’re not. At some point, McCain will have to choose. But the signs aren’t too good.

R.W. Johnson reports from Zimbabwe:

Perhaps the most important thing about the election was that, because Mbeki and Mugabe had miscalculated so spectacularly, Zanu-PF was caught off-guard and for several days there was complete uncertainty. That period provided an aperture through which Zimbabweans could glimpse an alternative future – and many did. It was clear that, with a new democratic government, there would be immediate British and American help, quickly followed by the EU, the World Bank and IMF, with the emphasis on food aid and the restabilisation of the currency. One consequence would be that Zimbabwe would cease to be a client state of South Africa and instead become more generally dependent on developed country donors and investors. Doubtless, Mbeki and Mugabe would see this as a victory for neocolonialism, though one is bound to say that even if the prospect was described in those terms, ordinary Zimbabweans would happily vote for it. And, in no time at all, as the Zimbabwean economy revived, South African companies of every kind would move in.

The new mayor of London has an openly gay deputy mayor and several other openly gay – and married – appointees stand out. When NRO-niks start talking about a British conservative revival, they often fail to point out that it is happening while the Tories have decisively broken with the anti-gay policies that the GOP regards as non-negotiable features of their conservatism. I should add that Boris is also an unashamed member of the most privileged part of the most privileged elite. He went to Britain’s most exclusive schools, Eton and Oxford, where he was a member of the Bullingdon. David Cameron is also an Etonian and a Bullingdon member. And yet no right-winger in Britain accuses them of not caring about regular folks.

Isn’t it revealing that America’s political conversation now has more class consciousness than Britain’s? Thanks, Karl.

Shark-surfing, man:

Tomasky adds his two cents:

A former president married to a current vice president who really thinks she should be president creates the potential for way too much mischief that could undermine the president.

The trouble is: the Clintons will create mischief wherever they are. If Obama becomes president without them they will do all they can to undermine, destroy, and polarize him. The question is how one deals with sociopaths like them. It’s not easy.

Mickey Kaus tries to explain why he gets so much wrong about politics so often.

James Gibney tackles the war on drugs:

You’d have to be sucking on a doobie as big as a submarine to think our current drug-control policies work: from 1982 to 2005, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s budget increased roughly tenfold, the national arrest rate for drug offenses more than doubled (from 286 per 100,000 to 600 per 100,000) … and a dangerous drug like cocaine became dramatically less expensive. Meanwhile, busts for the possession of marijuana, which also figured prominently in the San Diego State investigation, still account for the most drug arrests in this country.

The war on drugs not only wastes law-enforcement resources, it also corrodes our respect for the law in general. Using a relatively benign drug like marijuana should become a regulated pastime, indulged in by consenting adults, much like drinking alcohol or gambling. Drunk driving kills more than 17,000 people each year, and 3 percent of the U.S. population meets the criteria for "problem gamblers." But no one talks seriously about reviving the 18th Amendment or shuttering Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Why? Because Prohibition taught us that banning such activities creates a nation of lawbreakers and a popular culture that exalts criminality. Costly, dubious, and ineffective legal strictures just end up undermining the social compact they’re intended to reinforce.

A useful primer on why many don’t allow those thugs in power to control the discourse. It’s Burma.

Matt hates the unity ticket idea:

Then there’s this — "[Clinton] would also bring some national security street cred to the ticket, which is an Obama vulnerability that I suspect is being underappreciated at the moment." This reflects, I believe, an incredibly damaging mindset that’s been crippling the Democratic Party for years and the prospect of excising this mindset is the single most appealing thing about the prospect of Obama being the nominee. Clinton’s "street cred" on national security consists, of course, of being massively wrong on the most important national security issue of her career. Paradoxically, a lot of folks find her massive wrongness on this hugely important issue reassuring…

Well, that wasn’t part of my argument at least.