The Dish

"I finally understand the party nostalgia for Reagan. Everyone speaks of him now, but it wasn’t that way in 2000, or 1992, or 1996, or even ’04. I think it is a manifestation of dislike for and disappointment in Mr. Bush. It is a turning away that is a turning back. It is a looking back to conservatism when conservatism was clear, knew what it was, was grounded in the facts of the world," – Peggy Noonan, WSJ.

I’ve been overwhelmed by lots of thoughtful emails on the racial question in this campaign. Here’s one particularly concrete and honest one about unconscious attitudes among liberals:

I’m white, and I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where I’ve been for all but a few of the past twenty-five years. In the last few years, I’ve been heavily involved in a youth basketball program that my twelve year-old son participates in. The teams in the program are overwhelmingly African-American, and they play in leagues and tournaments throughout southeastern Michigan and in some neighboring states. Many of the teams they play are predominantly or exclusively African-American, many are all white. In watching these teams compete, as both a spectator and coach, I’ve had a revelation about how many white people have reflexively suspicious, if not antagonistic, attitudes about African-Americans.

 

For example, consider the differing reactions to games where one team blows out another.  Competition levels are often uneven in youth leagues, and scores of 45-10 are common.  In a Detroit league, when one African-American team dominates another by that kind of score, no-one objects.  It’s another day in the gym.  In a league in almost-all-white Livingston County, a white-on-white blowout elicits the same reaction. But how do the losing parents and coaches react when an African-American team blows out a white team?  There’s a palpable sense of anger and resentment.  The winning team is accused of playing dirty or "too physical" or of running up the score, or of having ringers who are really older than the maximum age, or (most revealingly) of being "thugs." 

 

These prejudiced responses come from whites in places like Howell, a town with a long and storied tradition of KKK activity, or Livonia, a quintessential enclave of middle-class Reagan Democrats.  But white left wingers from Ann Arbor react the same way.  Exactly. 

Two years ago, when my son was in the fourth grade, his team played a team from the west side of Ann Arbor, where "Impeach Bush" signs are found on every other lawn.  It was a blowout, and all those liberal parents were ready to throw my son’s team out of the league, contending that all of these black kids were a group of ringers who played too rough.  This is not an exaggeration.  The rest of my son’s team’s schedule was canceled, and the rest of their games were only against teams that volunteered to play them.  My son’s head coach, an African-American, was personally excoriated in an email campaign .  Shortly after this controversy, in the same league, I watched one all-white Ann Arbor team get blown out by another all-white team.  I think it was 20-0 at the end of the first quarter.  Nothing but laughs and smiles all around, and consolation ice-cream cones (or soy milk hot chocolates).  No-one’s schedule was changed as a result. No-one was raising threats against any coaches.

 

This is just a microcosm, but there’s a lot going on within it. Whites — of all political persuasions — don’t like to feel inferior to blacks.  They don’t like to compete on a level playing field with blacks, and, when they do compete and lose, they can’t accept the loss.  They insist that there must be some explanation besides the fact that they just weren’t as good.  None of the racial attitudes are overt.  But after seeing these attitudes repeated again and again and only when black kids are winning, it’s impossible to conclude that they are anything but racial, even though they might be represented as something else.

 

I still have hope.  I still think change is possible.  I’m going to do everything I can to work for Obama’s election in November.  But there’s a lot of prejudice in every part of the polity that’s gone unrecognized by those who hold it — even if it has been recognized and exploited by a cynical few of both parties who know just how to bring it out without calling its name.  In the contest with the Clintons, the Rovistas and their ilk, we may not win this time, but we must fight nevertheless.  As Danton said, "il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace."

NRO goes after ethanol:

There is little the U.S. government can do to make gasoline less expensive and nothing it can do about the weather in Australia. The production of ethanol, on the other hand, is directly related to government policies that subsidize it and require its use in gasoline. Absent government intervention, there would be little demand for ethanol. It has a lower energy content than gasoline, it is not significantly cheaper, and it is more difficult to transport to points of sale.

I have to say that the impact on carbon emissions of ethanol has changed my mind about this. This subsidized fuel is actually hurting the climate. That wasn’t the intention, of course. But it has become the result. And it has also helped tip millions of the poor across the planet into a bare-knuckled fight for affordable food.

A reader writes:

Isn’t it crazy how all the hope you’ve had for your country your whole life can be drained out of you in one primary election cycle?  I’m 26 and if this thing takes the turn it looks like it’s going to take, this will be the very last time I submit myself to this. I’m not built for this sort of disappointment. After the last 8 years, I can’t believe we are still trapped in the same gutter of fear and deception.

Maybe everyone was right about Obama.  Maybe I have been naïve.  The Clintons knew all along it would come to this.  Maybe they didn’t expect it now, but they knew they’d have to get the White House this way.  They’re just breaking out their General Election game early.  And it’s genius.  They ARE monsters.

But they are also wrong and it really is time to chill about the Clintons (memo to self: take your own advice).

Obama is not way to the "left" of the Clintons. (His only substantive policy difference with Clinton is on healthcare where is marginally to their right.) He obviously does care about working class voters, white and black. Why else would an Ivy League educated lawyer return to Chicago to work as a community organizer for the urban poor? He has a message and an approach that can unify – and no Democrat is going to win the White House by pivoting off white discomfort with a black man.

The next generation, meanwhile, needs to get real. This was never going to be easy or simple. Real change never is. Abandoning the process in the face of raw cynicism is what the Clintons want. They have to freeze out the millions of new voters if they are to retain their grip over their party. But the truth remains: with these millions of new voters and new donors, they can be defeated – and have been defeated. Despite massive advantages, the Clintons have been singularly unable to close the deal that was theirs’ for the asking only six months ago.

What they’re doing now is trying to out-psyche us. It’s all they have left. Don’t let them get into your head!

Robert Kaplan explains the significance of Petraeus’s promotion:

…the personnel changes indicate that the administration is desperate to show enough improvement in Iraq by the end of the year that an incoming Democratic president wouldn’t dare reduce troop levels precipitously and risk being blamed for a dramatic security meltdown. To wit, these appointments demonstrate that, irrespective of who will be the next president, the presidential transition has already begun — on this administration’s terms.

Mark Blumenthal looks at the popular vote argument.

Philip Carter on the latest news from Iraq:

The New York Times reports this afternoon that the mother of all political deals may be coming together in Baghdad, one that would bring Iraq’s largest Sunni political bloc back into the Shiite-led government.This is potentially huge news. If this grand bargain goes through (and there is some reason for worry), it would represent a substantial step toward rapprochement between the Sunnis and the Maliki government and toward the formation of a viable, lasting national government. It could also boost the prospects for provincial elections in the fall.

I’m relieved by this:

About one thing I wish to be piercingly clear: I do not believe that Andrew Sullivan is an anti-Semite. No, it is more than a matter of my own belief. I know as an incontrovertible fact, based on my long acquaintance with him and his writings, that he is not an anti-Semite. Of course he is not an anti-Semite. I should have said so before I pounced.

The valid question at issue is the following:

Why a Catholic cannot call a Muslim a fraud or a Jew call a Protestant a liar or an agnostic call a believer a cynic, or why one’s identity should have any bearing upon the truth or falsity of anything one says.

I take that point. Yes, in some respects, anyone is at liberty to call anyone else a fraud and their own identity can be irrelevant to that judgment. What I was trying to get at – not so artfully – is the following point. When a Catholic calls another Catholic a bad Catholic or a phony Catholic, it is evident that he is fighting over what both acknowledge is the same corpus of belief. They are both trying to get at the truth they should share. There is an understandable inference of sincerity and good faith. But if, say, a Muslim were to call a Catholic a fraud, it is not so clear that he is arguing out of sympathy for the common belief. And if he also has a political advantage in playing up divisions within another faith community, one’s suspicion of cynicism and opportunism on his part should ratchet up a notch. That was my point. In retrospect, I think I over-stated it. But I don’t think it’s without merit either.

Why Obama should drop out. It’s jujitsu:

Dropping out now nearly guarantees that he’ll be elected president in 2012. Here’s the roadmap:

Obama drops out next week, stating that although he could almost certainly win the nomination by fighting it out until the convention in August, he is simply not willing to drag the party through a battle that will cripple its chances against John McCain. He then pledges to help support Sen. Clinton in her bid—with full knowledge that she will not take him up on the offer.

In one stroke, Obama will regain his messiah creds by making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the party. His followers will be furious. The mere mention of Clinton’s name will provoke unspeakable acts. They will abandon Clinton in numbers sufficient to hand McCain the election in November.

The trouble is: it would be a betrayal of his supporters and his message. And there is a golden rule in politics: never give the Clintons a life-line. They will use it to strangle you the minute they have the opportunity.

"No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it’s going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008. I believe the cement set around the Clinton coffin last Friday. The Obama campaign announced it had received the support of former Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma," – Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal.