The Generational War

It does help explain why the biggest brand name in Democratic politics has never been able to close the deal in this primary season, and why a freshman senator will win the majority of pledged delegates:

My wife and I are what you would call Obama’s core demographic. I’m 27, she’s 28; we are both working toward earning our doctorates; and we’ve both lived through, but didn’t really experience, Bill Clinton’s presidency.  I think we have both developed a well-nurtured sense of doom about the future, driven perhaps by predictions of global warming and the seemingly unending War on Terror that President Bush has promised will be the defining struggle of our generation.  I know we’re going to be taxed to the hilt at some point to pay for that enormous national debt, and I know that our own finances have probably relied a little too much on the credit card and student loan.

It’s difficult and often hyperbolic to define a generation’s attitudes toward anything, let alone something as complex as voting behavior.  But, I do believe this election is being driven by an Obama voting bloc that, to a certain extent, blames the anxieties that I mentioned above on our parent’s generation.

No, not on our parents directly, since how could you not express affection for such an over-indulgent group of ex-hippies, but on their lack of self-discipline.  They were the generation that got their wish in the 1960s with John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy.  Who saw the promise of a new politics embodied in both men, and had the electoral power through sheer demographics to propel them to what would have been successful presidencies.

The promise was cut short, but that generation of baby boomers lived on as the definitive political and economic force in American politics.  In the late 60s and early 70s they expressed their social power through a burgeoning cultural and political revolution.  As the 70s became the 80s they began to grow into their prime earning potential, demanding tax cuts and beginning a spending spree that would fuel almost all of the economic growth of the 1990s.  They were narcissistic and short-sighted; all too willing to view an ascendant, powerful America as their personal reward for being born at the right time and place.  Perhaps the greatest metaphor for this generation’s attitude is the prevailing belief that the American consumer (and government) spent their way to a victory in the Cold War.

Now that it appears we’ve reached the limit of unrestrained consumption, they appear more than willing to take their social security checks and medicaid benefits and ride into the sunset, leaving in their wake a bankrupt, increasingly desparate younger generation.  They even have the gall to claim that we’re the generation of narcissists!  In my mind, the struggle between Clinton and Obama lays bare this generational conflict.  Unfortunately, we do not have the demographics on our side, and I’m afraid that our struggle will ultimately be unsuccessful.  I’m afraid that by the time a pragmatic, problem-solving leader like Obama reaches the White House, we’ll be beating ourselves over the heads with our guns (bullets having become an expensive luxury) in a vain attempt to protect our local community’s water supply.  I’m not saying it will be as bad as a Mel Gibson movie, but I think it will be pretty bad.

The greatest dogwhistle of the Obama campaign so far is his ability to lay out this urgency to our generation.  Viewed in this light, the only thing Obama has to tell me about yesterday’s election is that Pennsylanvia has the second oldest population in the country.  After hearing that fact, I get it.  He was never going to win.  My wife and I are committed to his campaign no matter what, and I thought I would write you to share our reasons why.  This campaign is about generational politics, but unfortunately the urgency of our generation’s concerns doesn’t seem to be filtering through to the MSM.  I’ve admired your willingness to express this generational dynamic, and I thought I would urge you to do more.

The President And Pontiff

Thomas Banchoff considers the Pope’s and Bush’s relationship. The president is keen to advance certain factions in a religious faith he does not share – for his own political purposes. That instrumental use of religion is at the core of today’s "conservatism". But Banchoff notes that Benedict doesn’t share Bush’s political theology in all respects:

[For Benedict], political freedom is not God’s gift; it is a practical task, a way to protect and promote the inherent dignity and equality of human beings. Its advancement is a joint challenge to believers and non-believers alike, to be addressed through patient diplomacy and dialogue, not through the application of force.

It was striking to me that the Pope refused to address the president’s authorization of inhumane treatment and torture of prisoners. This was not an accidental omission. In return, the president refused to engage the Pope on his own complicity in the systematic cover-up of child rape and teen abuse by his own priests. I have a feeling that history will not be as reticent.

Iraq As Finland?

Michael Burleigh makes the case:

…as President Bush recently acknowledged, the US needs Iran to leave Iraq in a long-term stable condition. It is currently Iran that is not turning up to the offer of meetings. One scenario I’ve heard about is the Finnish solution. At the end of WWII, the US and USSR agreed that while Finland would be a democracy based on liberal capitalism, it would not join NATO and major decisions would be subject to Soviet veto. Although the prospect seems unlikely, Iran is terrified of a revival of Sunni dominance and a renewal of the war which cost a million Iranian dead in the 1980s. The US is also adamant that Iraq’s oil will not fall under Iranian suasion. One solution is therefore for Iraq to become a latterday Finland. Independent, but incapable of menacing its neighbours. That would also assuage Saudi fears about a Shia dominated northern neighbour.

Something like this will be inevitable, if only because, like Finland and the USSR, the geographical proximity and regional pull of Iran on Shia-run Iraq is irresistible – and certainly more powerful than any distant hyper-power’s influence. A more normal Iraq in a few years’ time – and that’s the best possible scenario right now – will be a major advance for Shia Iran. We will have succeeded in moving the faultline between Shia and Sunni a few hundred miles West. In the end, that’s what 4,000 military deaths, probably close to 200,000 civilian deaths, and $3 trillion will have accomplished. If we’re lucky.

The Clintons’ Secret Weapon

Rove let the cat out of the bag: it’s Michigan, stupid:

While all eyes were locked on Pennsylvania for the last six weeks, Clinton was quietly amassing delegates in the Wolverine State. And she was rewarded this past weekend with a significant victory at the district conventions…

Buoyed by party elder support, Clinton seems likely to capture more than 60 percent of the state’s 128 pledged delegates, according to an analysis by the Michigan Information & Research Service. Including the 28 superdelegates, which lean heavily in the New York senator’s favor, she could win upward of 70 percent of delegates, provided that they’re seated with full voting power…

It’s becoming apparent that Obama should have consented to a revote here. He certainly wouldn’t have lost by 15 percentage points or more; polls have pegged the pair in a dead heat. But Obama seemed spooked that Clintonites put forth the plan and the money, so he quashed the do-over last month.

Now Obama is paying the price in delegates, starting with the Michigan Democratic Party’s 15 district conventions on Saturday. The Clinton battle plan was flawlessly executed with an eye toward a contested convention. Their delegate roster is crammed with big names like former Gov. Jim Blanchard and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero.

This is going all the way to Denver.