Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

Your Republican writer deserves the Sullivan Award for complete conservative nonsense.  We didn’t like Goldwater, nor Reagan.  We see them as the obvious antecedents to Bush, and think it’s a big joke that you all are so surprised by the last eight years’ turn of events. That said, we are not trying to punish anyone, and we are aware that Mrs. Clinton is profoundly, if irrationally, divisive.  What’s worse for many of us is that she is a bit of a centrist, especially on issues of foreign policy. Most of us really wish there were more there there to Mr. Obama, both ideologically–in that he sounds like the same old centrist same old–except for his rhetoric on Iraq, not really a change and not even a change when it comes to politics–in that he doesn’t seem to provide much leadership when it comes to his colleagues; he doesn’t appear effective.  He never votes or takes a stand when it counts, and how many initiatives has he taken.

Say what you will about Mrs. Clinton, she does seem effective, and maybe that’s what scares the bejesus out of all you right wing ideologues.

The Clintons win elections, work their asses off, and get a lot done, for the most part hire good people, actually get along with coworkers from the other party, even if they’re a pair of triangulatin’ fools.

If Dodd or Biden had a chance, we’d lean that way.  If it came down to ideology, we’d probably prefer Edwards, an old fashioned Dem, and among the farther left, Kucinich.  We all wish Richardson, especially those of us from the west, appeared a stronger candidate too.  But no matter how much you and the conservatives who say they’d like a Black man by the name of Barack Obama wish to believe otherwise, for most Democrats, it’s been his nomination to win or lose, because that’s what we would most want too.  However, beyond symbolism, what we want to see is real world leadership, hands on, and so far he’s been second best at best to just about everyone else running.

The real key to understanding the difference between Republicans and Democrats is in their reactions to the previous two Presidents.  In fact, Bill Clinton was the best damned Republican policy President of the past half century.  Republicans hated his slippery personality, the way he played fast and loose with the truth, and his personal approach to life.  Democrats hate what George Bush has done to the country.  There’s a real difference, and Republicans as well as so-called (conservative) independents, project their feelings about the Clintons on ours about George Bush. To analogize, Michael Moore is not Michelle Malkin, but people like you can’t see the difference.

Obama and Boomers

A reader writes:

Obama’s biggest problem with the Boomers I’ve spoken with is that they are truly a narcissistic bunch who, yes, rebelled against their parents’ ways but so often did it on their parents dime and also still looked at their parents as "real adults." They still don’t see themselves as "real adults."

And they have never, ever, voted for a Presidential candidate who was younger than them.  And when you bring that up to them, bring up how you think they might be afraid of supporting Obama not because he’s young, but because he’s younger than them (and not a father figure), it really freaks their shit out.

I’m sure there’s some kind of truth here, but it’s surely not decisive. Still, a generational struggle is an interesting dynamic of the Clinton-Obama race. Remember: Clinton’s only five years older younger than Obama’s mother.

Quote For The Day II

"I think it is an open question whether the Times itself should be prosecuted for this totally gratuitous revealing of an ongoing secret classified program that is part of the war on terror," – Bill Kristol, July 7, 2006. Matt sighs. Isaac thinks he’s better in a partisan publication like the Weekly Standard:

The beauty of Kristol’s Weekly Standard editorials is that his thuggish side is allowed to shine; at Time it was constricted.

Steve Benen:

This is an embarrassment from which the paper of record will not soon recover.

That strikes me as too excitable. It’s just a missed opportunity. I guess they did have Tierney for a while. But balancing Kristol with a paleocon or libertarian would be a good idea. Why not stir the pot and add Brookhiser or Ponnuru or Chapman once a week? Or a younger blogger like Larison or Douthat or Balko?

The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage (Again)

A response to my post. I think Reihan’s point is that social conservatism resists change and that therefore extending civil marriage rights to gay couples is inherently liberal. The reform corresponds with the evolution of civil marriage away from procreation and toward companionship – and social conservatives worry about such change. In that sense, I don’t disagree with Reihan’s point. The most coherent conservative objection to same-sex marriage is simply resistance to any tampering with a vital social institution. I respect that position; it’s certainly devoid of bigotry; and, as longtime readers know, I’m happy to let this evolution proceed state by state for Hayekian reasons.

But as societies change, conservatives have to adapt – at least if Burke is still regarded as a conservative. Aa12_2 Given that our society now has a huge number of openly gay couples, many with children, and that the law has to respond to this social reality, the practical decision conservatives have to make is: what shall we do about this? My fear, expressed almost two decades ago now, was that the ad hoc responses – domestic partnership, civil unions and the like – were as practically unavoidable as they were subtly undermining of marriage. Give gays domestic partnerships and marriage-lite and straights will demand them as well. And so marriage becomes less special and less constructive an institution.

I can see that, back in 1989, when I first made the case, the jump to full marriage equality seemed a leap. But two decades later? When it has become the norm in many countries and in one state? When civil unions exist in many other states? Why does it remain socially liberal to resist the conservative logic of including everyone within the same family structure, with the same responsibilities? And, of course, when you actually listen to the current advocates of banning such marriages – and unions – you do not hear nuanced or Hayekian social arguments very often. You hear Virtuallynormal truisms – "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" – or religious invocations of the "sanctity" of a civil institution.

I suppose marriage equality is socially liberal in as much as it tries to defend and integrate a previously despised minority. But it is socially conservative in its attempt to envelop that minority in the traditions and responsibilities of family life. In this, it is exactly the same as welfare reform: ending a disincentive to family life among a minority that needs more social stability. I have to say that having finally begun to live a married life, all my previous intuitions about its integrating impact have been borne out more profoundly than I ever imagined.

If you can make the leap to seeing gay people as the equal of straight people, then encouraging their marriages to one another is arguably one of the most socially conservative measures now subject to national debate. That’s why it remains so saddening that so many social conservatives still regard it as definitionally anathema. I don’t think it’s a leap to believe that homophobia or fundamentalism are the critical stumbling blocks. Or that they are the real reasons for the resistance.