Michael Barone condemns the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, and Democrats in general for failing to speak up on the issue of China's human rights violations. True, George W. Bush wasn't exactly a crusader for the rights of Chinese dissidents, but Barone charges that the Obamanistas aren't even trying:
It is one thing not to press a tyranny very hard on human rights; it is another thing to come out and say you're not going to raise the issue at all. It is a kind of unilateral moral disarmament. One arrow in the quiver of American foreign policy has been our pressing -- sometimes sotto voce (as in the Helsinki Accords), sometimes in opera buffa ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!") -- tyrannical regimes to honor human rights. Hillary Clinton has put that arrow over her knee, broken it in two and thrown it away.
He goes on to argue that Democrats have been criminally lax regarding human rights around the world. When Bush called for spreading democracy around the globe in the 2005 inaugural, Barone recalls how liberals "guffawed and groaned and jeered." Their reflexive Bush-bashing has led them astray from liberalism's long-time commitment to spreading democracy abroad.
Or so Barone says. I'm inclined to agree--mostly. Though even some of Bush's former supporters now say that the president's worldview might have been a bit too simplistic, he at least was willing to call for a change. And by freeing Iraq, he struck the greatest blow for democracy worldwide since the fall of the USSR more than a decade before.
The issue of human rights has become so much more complicated since then, because the world has grown much more complex. During the Cold War, our policy could be guided by asking a simple question. Would it help us defeat the Soviets? Now we ask, Will it help us defeat the terrorists? The first question is much, much easier to answer, not least because of the difficulty of defining "terrorist."
Does the United States have the responsibility to export democracy? One blog post isn't big enough to list all the pros and cons; one book isn't big enough. Several books, Oxford English Dictionary Style, probably wouldn't even be enough.
But I think Barone is right when he accuses liberals of dereliction of duty. Exporting democracy doesn't necessarily mean doing it by force, though those two ideas became tightly entangled during the Bush years. Instead, it means you're willing to speak up for those who can't speak for themselves. When Clinton glosses over China's human rights problems in one sentence, she's silencing the voices of those who deserve to be heard.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The Future of the GOP...
...Is Mitt Romney. Or that's what CPAC says. Second is Bobby Jindal, followed by runners-up Sarah Palin and Ron Paul. Note: CPAC's straw poll contained an unusually large sampling of college students, explaining the good doctor's strong showing.
Newt Gingrich picks up a couple votes, with Mike Huckabee trailing behind. The article, by the way, quotes Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher. I wonder: how long before we see a presidential boom for Joe? The man clearly has his sights set on higher office, and I'm not being facetious. I wouldn't be surprised if he entered the Ohio Senate race and competed against Rob Portman in the primaries.
Newt Gingrich picks up a couple votes, with Mike Huckabee trailing behind. The article, by the way, quotes Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher. I wonder: how long before we see a presidential boom for Joe? The man clearly has his sights set on higher office, and I'm not being facetious. I wouldn't be surprised if he entered the Ohio Senate race and competed against Rob Portman in the primaries.
Paper Cuts
I confess--I'm a killer. Not the really bad kind of killer, I hasten to add. I've never killed another person. I am, however, complicit in the death of a whole industry, specifically the newspaper biz.
My first semester at UNC, I got myself a subscription to the New York Times. It wasn't done out of love for the Gray Lady, though. One of our professors wanted us to read the NYT everyday so we could become "more cultured." If that wasn't incentive enough, we also had to write a paper on an article we found.
My subscription has long since run out. Now, I only see an actual newspaper, in the paper-y sense, when I come home. The NYT is always worth reading--I'm getting "more cultured," after all--but the local Raleigh News & Observer is a little less...quality. The only culture you get from reading the N&O involves NASCAR. I'm no elitist snot. But I can't help thinking that if the N&O put as much effort into the front page as they did the sports page, their articles might be a little more readable.
There's my dilemma. I'm of two minds on this whole "crisis of newspaper issue." Part of me sneers, "You want more readers? Then make a better product!" This nasty side believes that the papers only have themselves to blame. They got fat and complacent, started losing readers to the internet, and only now are beginning to realize their mistake.
My other half is a little more sympathetic. That part of me recognizes that even high-quality newspapers like the NYT and the Washington Post are struggling. It's not just the local penny-savers that are going under; it's journalistic institutions like the Rocky Mountain News.
Newspapers do play an important role in our society, though maybe not an absolutely irreplaceable one. Critics of the business say that papers are dinosaurs, that we can get all our news off of the web. But in most cases, the best internet reporting is provided by...the websites of the papers themselves. If the papers die, their sites fold with them.
So my nicer half wins out. We need to keep newspapers around. They provide well-written articles--the good papers do, at least--and a little extra. They add a little flavor to life. Forgive the pretentiousness of the following statement, but I can't imagine a Sunday morning with a thoroughly disemboweled NYT spread out over the kitchen table. It'd be like going to a circus and not seeing any elephants. Yeah, you don't need the elephants, but they're part of the experience.
How to save newspapers, then? Over at Reason, Cathy Young proposes a few solutions. Surprisingly, given Reason's libertarian bent, she offers more than "kill 'em all and let the free market sort 'em out." I'm not sure about this whole "news by the slice" concept, but I wasn't sold on iTunes either. And look how that worked out.
My first semester at UNC, I got myself a subscription to the New York Times. It wasn't done out of love for the Gray Lady, though. One of our professors wanted us to read the NYT everyday so we could become "more cultured." If that wasn't incentive enough, we also had to write a paper on an article we found.
My subscription has long since run out. Now, I only see an actual newspaper, in the paper-y sense, when I come home. The NYT is always worth reading--I'm getting "more cultured," after all--but the local Raleigh News & Observer is a little less...quality. The only culture you get from reading the N&O involves NASCAR. I'm no elitist snot. But I can't help thinking that if the N&O put as much effort into the front page as they did the sports page, their articles might be a little more readable.
There's my dilemma. I'm of two minds on this whole "crisis of newspaper issue." Part of me sneers, "You want more readers? Then make a better product!" This nasty side believes that the papers only have themselves to blame. They got fat and complacent, started losing readers to the internet, and only now are beginning to realize their mistake.
My other half is a little more sympathetic. That part of me recognizes that even high-quality newspapers like the NYT and the Washington Post are struggling. It's not just the local penny-savers that are going under; it's journalistic institutions like the Rocky Mountain News.
Newspapers do play an important role in our society, though maybe not an absolutely irreplaceable one. Critics of the business say that papers are dinosaurs, that we can get all our news off of the web. But in most cases, the best internet reporting is provided by...the websites of the papers themselves. If the papers die, their sites fold with them.
So my nicer half wins out. We need to keep newspapers around. They provide well-written articles--the good papers do, at least--and a little extra. They add a little flavor to life. Forgive the pretentiousness of the following statement, but I can't imagine a Sunday morning with a thoroughly disemboweled NYT spread out over the kitchen table. It'd be like going to a circus and not seeing any elephants. Yeah, you don't need the elephants, but they're part of the experience.
How to save newspapers, then? Over at Reason, Cathy Young proposes a few solutions. Surprisingly, given Reason's libertarian bent, she offers more than "kill 'em all and let the free market sort 'em out." I'm not sure about this whole "news by the slice" concept, but I wasn't sold on iTunes either. And look how that worked out.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Packer on Brooks
George Packer of the New Yorker defends Barack Obama 'gainst the slings and arrows of David Brooks, whom Packer calls "one of the best critics the Obama administration will have."
He argues that recent history has made Brooks' worldview obsolete. Used to be, conservatives were the pragmatic ones, and liberals were the starry-eyed dreamers. That's the tradition Brooks draws on when he writes:
I fear that in trying to do everything at once, they will do nothing well. I fear that we have a group of people who haven’t even learned to use their new phone system trying to redesign half the U.S. economy.
Obama is going too far, too fast, and as such he's doomed to fail.
But is Brooks setting the bar too high? Packer certainly thinks so. According to him, it's liberals who are being pragmatic and conservatives who are the ideological ones. Conservatives like Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor aren't opposing Barack Obama because they're concerned he's pushing too far; they rejected the stimulus bill because they stubbornly refuse to let go of their discredited philosophy.
I think both Packer and Brooks are taking it too far when they turn the battle over the stimulus into a Grand War of Ideologies. Capitals necessary, because that's how much importance they give it.
Both conservatism and liberalism have always mixed pragmatism and ideology. The difference between them isn't that one side is realistic and the other idealistic. Conservatives and liberals disagree because they are idealistic about different things.
Liberals hold cherished notions about equality, humanity, and brotherhood. Conservatives get misty-eyed talking about tradition and history. They're both guilty of being over idealistic. Neither one can claim the mantle of pragmatism--at least, not without lying through their teeth.
So when Brooks accuses Obama of being too grandiose, or Packer claims Republicans are slaves to their dead ideology, both are wrong. Politics has always mixed the two. That's the way it's always been and always will be.
He argues that recent history has made Brooks' worldview obsolete. Used to be, conservatives were the pragmatic ones, and liberals were the starry-eyed dreamers. That's the tradition Brooks draws on when he writes:
I fear that in trying to do everything at once, they will do nothing well. I fear that we have a group of people who haven’t even learned to use their new phone system trying to redesign half the U.S. economy.
Obama is going too far, too fast, and as such he's doomed to fail.
But is Brooks setting the bar too high? Packer certainly thinks so. According to him, it's liberals who are being pragmatic and conservatives who are the ideological ones. Conservatives like Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor aren't opposing Barack Obama because they're concerned he's pushing too far; they rejected the stimulus bill because they stubbornly refuse to let go of their discredited philosophy.
I think both Packer and Brooks are taking it too far when they turn the battle over the stimulus into a Grand War of Ideologies. Capitals necessary, because that's how much importance they give it.
Both conservatism and liberalism have always mixed pragmatism and ideology. The difference between them isn't that one side is realistic and the other idealistic. Conservatives and liberals disagree because they are idealistic about different things.
Liberals hold cherished notions about equality, humanity, and brotherhood. Conservatives get misty-eyed talking about tradition and history. They're both guilty of being over idealistic. Neither one can claim the mantle of pragmatism--at least, not without lying through their teeth.
So when Brooks accuses Obama of being too grandiose, or Packer claims Republicans are slaves to their dead ideology, both are wrong. Politics has always mixed the two. That's the way it's always been and always will be.
A Surfeit of Democracy
It's not a good time to be a Republican in Kentucky. I know things are bad for the GOP everywhere, but the situation in the Bluegrass State is even worse. Mitch McConnell, the state's senior senator and GOP leader in the Senate, is getting slammed by bloggers and talk radio for failing to stand up more to the Obama administration.
But McConnell's troubles are nothing compared to the woes of Senator Jim Bunning. For the past couple years, Bunning's been cultivating his reputation as the most clueless member of that remarkably clueless institution. Back in 2004, he made headlines when he said his Democratic opponent looked like one of Saddam Hussein's sons. He won the race, but it was a close-run thing.
Now he's making headlines again, and once again, he's making Kentucky Republicans reach for the ibuprofen. Bunning's latest--and possibly greatest--gaffe was to predict that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would die before the year's end. Needless to say, this hasn't gone over too well.
Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics grouses about Bunning's stupidity. But he makes a thought-provoking point, mostly unrelated to Bunning:
This is one big reason I do not understand why partisans on both sides suffer the primary process. It has become one of many mechanisms that effectively guarantee incumbents will be on the general election ballot. What this means, in turn, is that the party usually has to tolerate guys like Don Sherwood, Stevens, and Bunning. There is no "low cost" way for Republicans to hold their incumbents accountable, which means only the Democrats do. And the same goes with Democrats when their incumbents behave badly.
Very interesting. When you take this in conjunction with George's Will recent column, I wonder if we might be seeing the start of an anti-populist backlash.
For years, we've been taught that the solution to all problems is more democracy. It's been that way since...oh, at least the early 20th century. That's when progressives like Hiram Johnson in California and Robert La Follette in Wisconsin enacted a series of reforms intended to give the "common man" more say in the political process.
The reformers gave us the referendum, the initiative, and the recall. The people could now make their own laws; they could approve or reject bills from their state legislature; and if they disliked one of their politicians, they could yank him off the stage. Most people have accepted this as a good thing. America's a democracy, right? Certainly, we trust the people to make the right choices, especially when compared to those conniving politicians.
But these reforms have completely screwed up the balance of power. Before, authority was divided between legislative, judicial, and executive branches. Along come the reformers, and they add a new branch: the popular. There's no checks on them, no balances to less their power. The initiative, referendum, and recall give them the final word on everything.
This leads to all sorts of problems. For years, the California legislature tried to raise taxes, only to see their efforts rejected in repeated referenda. Now California's facing the mother of all budget shortfalls. I'm not usually a fan of raising taxes, but I can't help thinking the state would be better off today if a few of those hikes had gone through.
But maybe I'm seeing ghosts. Maybe Cost and Will are outliers, and maybe everyone else accepts that more democracy is always a good thing. Who knows? These are strange times. Anything is possible in politics, now more than ever.
But McConnell's troubles are nothing compared to the woes of Senator Jim Bunning. For the past couple years, Bunning's been cultivating his reputation as the most clueless member of that remarkably clueless institution. Back in 2004, he made headlines when he said his Democratic opponent looked like one of Saddam Hussein's sons. He won the race, but it was a close-run thing.
Now he's making headlines again, and once again, he's making Kentucky Republicans reach for the ibuprofen. Bunning's latest--and possibly greatest--gaffe was to predict that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would die before the year's end. Needless to say, this hasn't gone over too well.
Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics grouses about Bunning's stupidity. But he makes a thought-provoking point, mostly unrelated to Bunning:
This is one big reason I do not understand why partisans on both sides suffer the primary process. It has become one of many mechanisms that effectively guarantee incumbents will be on the general election ballot. What this means, in turn, is that the party usually has to tolerate guys like Don Sherwood, Stevens, and Bunning. There is no "low cost" way for Republicans to hold their incumbents accountable, which means only the Democrats do. And the same goes with Democrats when their incumbents behave badly.
Very interesting. When you take this in conjunction with George's Will recent column, I wonder if we might be seeing the start of an anti-populist backlash.
For years, we've been taught that the solution to all problems is more democracy. It's been that way since...oh, at least the early 20th century. That's when progressives like Hiram Johnson in California and Robert La Follette in Wisconsin enacted a series of reforms intended to give the "common man" more say in the political process.
The reformers gave us the referendum, the initiative, and the recall. The people could now make their own laws; they could approve or reject bills from their state legislature; and if they disliked one of their politicians, they could yank him off the stage. Most people have accepted this as a good thing. America's a democracy, right? Certainly, we trust the people to make the right choices, especially when compared to those conniving politicians.
But these reforms have completely screwed up the balance of power. Before, authority was divided between legislative, judicial, and executive branches. Along come the reformers, and they add a new branch: the popular. There's no checks on them, no balances to less their power. The initiative, referendum, and recall give them the final word on everything.
This leads to all sorts of problems. For years, the California legislature tried to raise taxes, only to see their efforts rejected in repeated referenda. Now California's facing the mother of all budget shortfalls. I'm not usually a fan of raising taxes, but I can't help thinking the state would be better off today if a few of those hikes had gone through.
But maybe I'm seeing ghosts. Maybe Cost and Will are outliers, and maybe everyone else accepts that more democracy is always a good thing. Who knows? These are strange times. Anything is possible in politics, now more than ever.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Way Out West
There was never much hope for the GOP in Washington State, and this poll ought to slam the door on any serious challenge to Senator Patty Murray in 2010. Murray, if you'll recall, made a rather boneheaded statement in 2004, saying that Osama bin Laden's support in the Arab world came in part because he was out there building "roads and preschools."
But she still survived a stiff challenge from Rep. George Nethercutt in '04. Nethercutt was a strong candidate, running in a good GOP year, and still got whupped by double digits. The poll in question indicates that Murray's position has only gotten stronger since then.
She leads the two strongest Republicans, Rep. Dave Reichert and state Attorney General Rob McKenna, by 13% and 16% respectively. I'd be interested to see how two-time gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi would fare against her. Not much better than Reichert or McKenna, I would guess, but perhaps he'd run a bit closer.
But she still survived a stiff challenge from Rep. George Nethercutt in '04. Nethercutt was a strong candidate, running in a good GOP year, and still got whupped by double digits. The poll in question indicates that Murray's position has only gotten stronger since then.
She leads the two strongest Republicans, Rep. Dave Reichert and state Attorney General Rob McKenna, by 13% and 16% respectively. I'd be interested to see how two-time gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi would fare against her. Not much better than Reichert or McKenna, I would guess, but perhaps he'd run a bit closer.
Shoot the Messenger?
In keeping with the last post, let's ask ourselves: what's the problem with the GOP? Is it the message, or the messenger? Are the party's policy's flawed, or is it marketing them in the wrong way?
The latter, says Daniel Larison of American Conservative Magazine. He questions the notion--made by more than a few bloggers in the wake of the 2008 election--that all Republicans have to do is work on outreach a little more.
Writes Larison:
The track record of GOP outreach efforts in the past, as I have said before, is not reassuring as a matter of politics or policy. In principle, expanding a voting coalition is the right idea, but I have yet to see a proposal along these lines that does not sound like a call for a new marketing strategy, which fundamentally misunderstands why the GOP does not win the support of these voters.
Ouch! That's harsh. Larison doesn't propose any alternatives, but then again, he's writing a blog post and not a manifesto for a new party.
In terms of marketing, the GOP has made a couple big steps forward in the past few weeks. The election of Michael Steele as head of the RNC was one. The fairly well-coordinated opposition to the stimulus plan was another. The first showed the GOP was at least going to make an effort to reach out to minorities; the second, that the party wouldn't be outmaneuvered by the Obama administration in the PR wars. We'll see if they can keep up the trend, or if they'll end up earning the moniker of "the Stupid Party" all over again.
The latter, says Daniel Larison of American Conservative Magazine. He questions the notion--made by more than a few bloggers in the wake of the 2008 election--that all Republicans have to do is work on outreach a little more.
Writes Larison:
The track record of GOP outreach efforts in the past, as I have said before, is not reassuring as a matter of politics or policy. In principle, expanding a voting coalition is the right idea, but I have yet to see a proposal along these lines that does not sound like a call for a new marketing strategy, which fundamentally misunderstands why the GOP does not win the support of these voters.
Ouch! That's harsh. Larison doesn't propose any alternatives, but then again, he's writing a blog post and not a manifesto for a new party.
In terms of marketing, the GOP has made a couple big steps forward in the past few weeks. The election of Michael Steele as head of the RNC was one. The fairly well-coordinated opposition to the stimulus plan was another. The first showed the GOP was at least going to make an effort to reach out to minorities; the second, that the party wouldn't be outmaneuvered by the Obama administration in the PR wars. We'll see if they can keep up the trend, or if they'll end up earning the moniker of "the Stupid Party" all over again.
Newt-wit
Interesting question, posed by David Corn in Mother Jones: "Will Gingrich lead the GOP out of the wilderness?" I know one person who definitely thinks so--Newt himself. For the past couple years Newt's been setting himself up as a the GOP's "idea guy." Sure, his supporters say, some of his ideas might seem a little crazy, but at least he's thinking. That's more than can be said for most other GOP bigwigs.
I'm skeptical that Newt is The One, though. First of all, let's not kid ourselves. He's not presidential timber. Is it unfair to say he doesn't look presidential? Forget fairness, then--he just doesn't look the part. Then there's the reality that the name "Gingrich" stirs up unpleasant memories for most Americans. Vague memories, but unpleasant ones nonetheless. To bring back Gingrich would be to take a dip in one of the sleazier eras of American politics; do we really want to put Bill Clinton and Monica back on center stage? Like it or not, Newt, but that's what you're associated with.
Then there's the ideas themselves. Judging from Corn's pieces, Newt is trying to remake himself as our first Web 2.0 Politician. Take a listen to some of his proposals:
Case in point: American Solutions. Its myriad projects include good-government initiatives, such as an effort to identify and connect all 513,000 elected officials in the United States so they can share best practices; its Solutions Academy features a video lecture by Elaine Kamarck, a one-time Al Gore aide, on how to modernize the federal bureaucracy. Last year, Gingrich sent American Solutions' director of Internet strategy, David Kralik, to Silicon Valley to set up an office and start mining the tech world for ideas. "There's an awful lot we can learn from the people who brought us Google," Kralik says. Referring to the explosion of user-review sites, he asks, "What if we could Yelp the federal government or local dmvs?"
The man wants to make government a mix of the best parts of Google, YouTube, and Facebook. Minus, hopefully, the hateful comment forums.
Is this the way to go? Undoubtedly, the government is going to grow more technocratic in the years to come. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Newt's ideas came to pass, albeit in a slightly changed form.
Maybe we won't have a forum connecting "all 513,000 elected officials" in the country. That plan seems a little too cumbersome, and a little too cute, to be real. What sort of benefit would we get from, say, a Senator from Iowa being able to communicate instantly with a San Diego city councilman? The advantages of inter-connectedness aren't unlimited. On a smaller scale, though, I think it would be a great idea.
The problem is that these are matters of process, not policy. And voters just don't care about process. Remember how much traction McCain got in 2008 by complaining about media bias? Things like electoral reform, government transparency, and legislative ethics just don't stir the blood the way economic, social, and foreign issues do.
So while Newt is going to be an invaluable resource to the GOP, we shouldn't stake all our hopes on some brilliant technocratic solution. The party is going to have to either go back to its core issues, or recreate itself a la the British Tory Party. We won't win by creating a national Twitter service.
I'm skeptical that Newt is The One, though. First of all, let's not kid ourselves. He's not presidential timber. Is it unfair to say he doesn't look presidential? Forget fairness, then--he just doesn't look the part. Then there's the reality that the name "Gingrich" stirs up unpleasant memories for most Americans. Vague memories, but unpleasant ones nonetheless. To bring back Gingrich would be to take a dip in one of the sleazier eras of American politics; do we really want to put Bill Clinton and Monica back on center stage? Like it or not, Newt, but that's what you're associated with.
Then there's the ideas themselves. Judging from Corn's pieces, Newt is trying to remake himself as our first Web 2.0 Politician. Take a listen to some of his proposals:
Case in point: American Solutions. Its myriad projects include good-government initiatives, such as an effort to identify and connect all 513,000 elected officials in the United States so they can share best practices; its Solutions Academy features a video lecture by Elaine Kamarck, a one-time Al Gore aide, on how to modernize the federal bureaucracy. Last year, Gingrich sent American Solutions' director of Internet strategy, David Kralik, to Silicon Valley to set up an office and start mining the tech world for ideas. "There's an awful lot we can learn from the people who brought us Google," Kralik says. Referring to the explosion of user-review sites, he asks, "What if we could Yelp the federal government or local dmvs?"
The man wants to make government a mix of the best parts of Google, YouTube, and Facebook. Minus, hopefully, the hateful comment forums.
Is this the way to go? Undoubtedly, the government is going to grow more technocratic in the years to come. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Newt's ideas came to pass, albeit in a slightly changed form.
Maybe we won't have a forum connecting "all 513,000 elected officials" in the country. That plan seems a little too cumbersome, and a little too cute, to be real. What sort of benefit would we get from, say, a Senator from Iowa being able to communicate instantly with a San Diego city councilman? The advantages of inter-connectedness aren't unlimited. On a smaller scale, though, I think it would be a great idea.
The problem is that these are matters of process, not policy. And voters just don't care about process. Remember how much traction McCain got in 2008 by complaining about media bias? Things like electoral reform, government transparency, and legislative ethics just don't stir the blood the way economic, social, and foreign issues do.
So while Newt is going to be an invaluable resource to the GOP, we shouldn't stake all our hopes on some brilliant technocratic solution. The party is going to have to either go back to its core issues, or recreate itself a la the British Tory Party. We won't win by creating a national Twitter service.
Friday, February 20, 2009
TV Land
If you'll allow me to get down off my political soapbox for a moment, I'd like to point you to an interesting piece in the Atlantic--ooh, I feel so sophisticated writing that! Now all I need is a pipe and a copy of the New York Review of Books, and my intellectual bona fides will be assured.
Anyway, the article is about the transformation of television. Long story short: expect more reality shows like "Survivor," more variety shows like "American Idol," and fewer serialized, lavishly-produced dramas like "Heroes" or "Lost." As more viewers get their television fix over the internet, "big" shows like "Heroes" become too much of a gamble. They can still turn a profit, sure. But the network stands to lose millions if things start going south. The one golden rule of television is that things will always go south after a little while.
TV--or at least network TV--is going to undergo a radical shift in the next few years, according to the article. The content will be cheaper, faster, and more disposable, throwaway trash like Jay Leno. The quality programming will migrate to paid services like HBO and Showtime. A few blockbuster shows might survive on the networks, but they'll be in the minority.
I don't know what to think about all this. I used to be a devoted watcher of "House" and "24," but it's been nearly year since I've seen a full episode of either. It's not that I'm watching on my laptop, though; I just have stopped watching in general. Am I bizarre, freakish case? Or am I some kind of trend-setter? Given my track record, I'd put my money on the first option.
Anyway, the article is about the transformation of television. Long story short: expect more reality shows like "Survivor," more variety shows like "American Idol," and fewer serialized, lavishly-produced dramas like "Heroes" or "Lost." As more viewers get their television fix over the internet, "big" shows like "Heroes" become too much of a gamble. They can still turn a profit, sure. But the network stands to lose millions if things start going south. The one golden rule of television is that things will always go south after a little while.
TV--or at least network TV--is going to undergo a radical shift in the next few years, according to the article. The content will be cheaper, faster, and more disposable, throwaway trash like Jay Leno. The quality programming will migrate to paid services like HBO and Showtime. A few blockbuster shows might survive on the networks, but they'll be in the minority.
I don't know what to think about all this. I used to be a devoted watcher of "House" and "24," but it's been nearly year since I've seen a full episode of either. It's not that I'm watching on my laptop, though; I just have stopped watching in general. Am I bizarre, freakish case? Or am I some kind of trend-setter? Given my track record, I'd put my money on the first option.
Tax and Spend, Spend, Spend
With his latest column at the Washington Post, Michael Kinsley adds his name to the ever-growing list of Stimulus Semi-Skeptics. Others include David Brooks, whose Friday op-ed is a concise summary of the SSS creed.
Stimulus Semi-Skeptics favor the stimulus, but feel guilty about doing so. It just doesn't seem right to them. I imagine that every time they type something in favor of the billion-dollar national bailout, they get a queasy feeling in their stomach or hear a whistling in their ear.
For years, SSSs like Kinsley and Brooks have looked askance at government spending. They weren't exactly libertarian budget-slashers, but they did advocate for fiscal prudence. And now they're facing a nasty paradox. Just when they've been proven right, they find themselves forced to swallow their words.
Stimulus Semi-Skeptics argue that the stimulus is 1) completely unfair and 2) the only way out of this whole mess. As usual, Kinsley puts its best:
We're going to need a second stimulus package, probably a third chapter of the bank bailout, more for the auto industry and others. It's all going to cost at least two or three trillion. If it works, it will be money well spent. If it doesn't work, that means we should have spent more.
I agree, sort of. Kinsley seems to be saying that as long as we're spending money, we're on the right track. But doesn't it matter what the money is being spent on? If a wild spending spree is the best way out, why don't we load up a dozen 747s with dollar bills and have them jettison their cargo at 40,000 feet up?
Doesn't anybody care where this is going? Doesn't anybody realize this money might be gobbled up with no effect whatsoever? Who's in charge, anyway? That, I think, is the question Stimulus Skeptics--no Semi for them--want answered. And so far, they've got nothing.
Stimulus Semi-Skeptics favor the stimulus, but feel guilty about doing so. It just doesn't seem right to them. I imagine that every time they type something in favor of the billion-dollar national bailout, they get a queasy feeling in their stomach or hear a whistling in their ear.
For years, SSSs like Kinsley and Brooks have looked askance at government spending. They weren't exactly libertarian budget-slashers, but they did advocate for fiscal prudence. And now they're facing a nasty paradox. Just when they've been proven right, they find themselves forced to swallow their words.
Stimulus Semi-Skeptics argue that the stimulus is 1) completely unfair and 2) the only way out of this whole mess. As usual, Kinsley puts its best:
We're going to need a second stimulus package, probably a third chapter of the bank bailout, more for the auto industry and others. It's all going to cost at least two or three trillion. If it works, it will be money well spent. If it doesn't work, that means we should have spent more.
I agree, sort of. Kinsley seems to be saying that as long as we're spending money, we're on the right track. But doesn't it matter what the money is being spent on? If a wild spending spree is the best way out, why don't we load up a dozen 747s with dollar bills and have them jettison their cargo at 40,000 feet up?
Doesn't anybody care where this is going? Doesn't anybody realize this money might be gobbled up with no effect whatsoever? Who's in charge, anyway? That, I think, is the question Stimulus Skeptics--no Semi for them--want answered. And so far, they've got nothing.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
How Steele Did It
I didn't pay much attention to the race for the chairmanship of the RNC; I was too busy re-adjusting to life at UNC. I did pick up enough, though, to be surprised when Michael Steele won. I knew right-wing bloggers were crazy for Steele, but I thought it was just a passing craze. I didn't think he could translate that into actual votes. After all, it's the party insiders who pick the chairman, not the properieter of http://conservativecommentaryandopinions.blogspot.com. Note: not a real blog. Yet.
Politics magazine looks at how he won. Let's see...he exploited a desire for change, utilized new technology--particularly the internet--to rally supporters, and staffed his campaign with young, eager talent. Boy, where have I heard that one before? No, I don't think it was the McCain campaign...hmmmm...can't quite put my finger on it.
Republicans everywhere will be thrilled to read these lines:
Steele carries three Blackberries and is prone to flurries of past-midnight emails, and he made a convincing case that he would bring the GOP’s campaign technology into the digital age.
That's a welcome change, especially when the last public face of the party admitted he barely knew how to use a computer. Granted, using a Blackberry doesn't make you a technical wizard. That's like saying heating up a Hot Pocket makes you a cordon bleu chef. But it's a start, and that's what the GOP needs right now--a little push to get them going. Well, maybe more than "a little" one.
Politics magazine looks at how he won. Let's see...he exploited a desire for change, utilized new technology--particularly the internet--to rally supporters, and staffed his campaign with young, eager talent. Boy, where have I heard that one before? No, I don't think it was the McCain campaign...hmmmm...can't quite put my finger on it.
Republicans everywhere will be thrilled to read these lines:
Steele carries three Blackberries and is prone to flurries of past-midnight emails, and he made a convincing case that he would bring the GOP’s campaign technology into the digital age.
That's a welcome change, especially when the last public face of the party admitted he barely knew how to use a computer. Granted, using a Blackberry doesn't make you a technical wizard. That's like saying heating up a Hot Pocket makes you a cordon bleu chef. But it's a start, and that's what the GOP needs right now--a little push to get them going. Well, maybe more than "a little" one.
Two for the Senate
From Politico comes good news for Republicans on two fronts. On the east coast, it looks like George Pataki might run for Hillary Clinton's old Senate seat. If you've forgotten--and I can't blame you if you have, what with everything that's happened since--that seat is now held by former representative Kirsten Gillibrand.
Pataki is going to face an uphill fight, but he has a better shot at winning than any Republican not named "Giuliani." He certainly will do better than Peter King, the OTHER prospective GOP candidate. King is a conservative congressman from Long Island. And while he's managed to win re-election in an increasingly blue district, I doubt he can translate that success into state-wide victory. New York is blue, blue, blue. Anyone to the right of Pataki doesn't have a prayer of victory.
And in the heartland state of Missouri, Republicans have found a formidable candidate to fill the seat of retiring Senator Kit Bond. Roy Blunt, formerly House majority whip, wants to move on up to the Big Chamber. I guess being a backbencher isn't as fun once you've had a taste of power.
Holding the Mizzou senate seat is going to be crucial for Republicans. Missouri is coming dangerously close to being the next Colorado; in the past four years, Democrats have bagged both the governorship and one of the Senate seats. McCain won in 2008, but it was a narrow thing. The fight for Bonds' seat will give the GOP a chance to regroup and counteract the Democratic tide running in the Show-Me State.
Pataki is going to face an uphill fight, but he has a better shot at winning than any Republican not named "Giuliani." He certainly will do better than Peter King, the OTHER prospective GOP candidate. King is a conservative congressman from Long Island. And while he's managed to win re-election in an increasingly blue district, I doubt he can translate that success into state-wide victory. New York is blue, blue, blue. Anyone to the right of Pataki doesn't have a prayer of victory.
And in the heartland state of Missouri, Republicans have found a formidable candidate to fill the seat of retiring Senator Kit Bond. Roy Blunt, formerly House majority whip, wants to move on up to the Big Chamber. I guess being a backbencher isn't as fun once you've had a taste of power.
Holding the Mizzou senate seat is going to be crucial for Republicans. Missouri is coming dangerously close to being the next Colorado; in the past four years, Democrats have bagged both the governorship and one of the Senate seats. McCain won in 2008, but it was a narrow thing. The fight for Bonds' seat will give the GOP a chance to regroup and counteract the Democratic tide running in the Show-Me State.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Here Today, Gone Tomorrow
Looks like Roland Burris might have the shortest-lived career in Washington this side of William Henry Harrison. I doubt even the toughest politician could survive something like this. I'm not going to say Burris was living on borrowed time, but he came into office under a real cloud. And now the cloud has burst and the deluge is on its way. Good luck riding out the storm, Senator.
President's Day Picks
Happy President's Day! It's the one day every year when I can ask people, "So who's your favorite president?" and not get strange looks in response. Well, I still get a couple of those, but a lot less than usual.
Of course, we've all been stuck in that awkward situation where someone asks, "Who's your favorite president," and all you can do is stammer, "Uh...Washington, or Lincoln, maybe." Or maybe that's just me. Regardless, it's always good to have a few names on the tip of your tongue.
Washington and Lincoln are the safe bets. No one--other than the occasional nut job--is going to snarl and say, "What? Are you crazy?" It's hard to go wrong with FDR either, especially nowadays. If you want to go a little further out on a limb, try Theodore Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson. You'll look adventurous without looking stupid. Is anyone going to argue Teddy WASN'T a great president?
Of course, maybe you don't want to play it safe. Maybe you want to be the person who gets weird looks, the kind of guy who says things like "Washington was our most overrated president" or "Benjamin Harrison--now there was a great president?"
If you're that guy, may I recommend Grover Cleveland? Poor Grover was regarded as an utter failure in his own time. His party repudiated him at the 1896 presidential convention, voting down a motion that affirmed his presidency. Now, though, people see him as the proto-Harry Truman, the man who stuck to his guns even as his allies turned on him. Plus, there's that mustache.
You want more? Then I suggest you check out National Review's symposium on the greatest presidents. I would like to note two things:
1. Libertarians don't have a lot of jokes. One of their standbys, though, is to say that William Henry Harrison was our greatest president. It never fails to get a laugh--among libertarians, at least. No less than two people make that joke in this article.
2. One person seriously argues that Warren Harding was our greatest president. This validates what I would like to call Schultz's Law of History, which is that no opinion is so stupid that it is utterly without backers.
So browse, and enjoy.
Full disclosure: I think Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president, followed by Washington, TR, FDR, and Eisenhower. I also admit to having a soft spot for William McKinley and James K. Polk.
Of course, we've all been stuck in that awkward situation where someone asks, "Who's your favorite president," and all you can do is stammer, "Uh...Washington, or Lincoln, maybe." Or maybe that's just me. Regardless, it's always good to have a few names on the tip of your tongue.
Washington and Lincoln are the safe bets. No one--other than the occasional nut job--is going to snarl and say, "What? Are you crazy?" It's hard to go wrong with FDR either, especially nowadays. If you want to go a little further out on a limb, try Theodore Roosevelt or Thomas Jefferson. You'll look adventurous without looking stupid. Is anyone going to argue Teddy WASN'T a great president?
Of course, maybe you don't want to play it safe. Maybe you want to be the person who gets weird looks, the kind of guy who says things like "Washington was our most overrated president" or "Benjamin Harrison--now there was a great president?"
If you're that guy, may I recommend Grover Cleveland? Poor Grover was regarded as an utter failure in his own time. His party repudiated him at the 1896 presidential convention, voting down a motion that affirmed his presidency. Now, though, people see him as the proto-Harry Truman, the man who stuck to his guns even as his allies turned on him. Plus, there's that mustache.
You want more? Then I suggest you check out National Review's symposium on the greatest presidents. I would like to note two things:
1. Libertarians don't have a lot of jokes. One of their standbys, though, is to say that William Henry Harrison was our greatest president. It never fails to get a laugh--among libertarians, at least. No less than two people make that joke in this article.
2. One person seriously argues that Warren Harding was our greatest president. This validates what I would like to call Schultz's Law of History, which is that no opinion is so stupid that it is utterly without backers.
So browse, and enjoy.
Full disclosure: I think Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president, followed by Washington, TR, FDR, and Eisenhower. I also admit to having a soft spot for William McKinley and James K. Polk.
The Thousand-Years War
In his weekly column, conservative pundit Rod Dreher argues that the culture wars aren’t over—that they’ll never be over, as a matter of fact. Despite what some people seem to think, Barack Obama isn’t blessed with a magical power to heal our divisions and bring us together to hold hands and sing. Writes Dreher:
Will Barack Obama end the culture wars? He couldn't if he wanted. In America, the culture war will never die, only wax and wane across multiple battlefields. When you live in a large, diverse, pluralistic democracy, it comes with the territory.
It’s become fashionable to bemoan the culture wars as the worst thing to happen to America since smallpox. Everybody hates the culture war. Liberals hate it, because they think it distracts from more important issues, things like health care and education. Conservatives hate it, because it signals a challenge to American traditions. Moderates hate it most of all, because they’re sick of being whipsawed between two equally zealous bunches of sign-waving, slogan-chanting crazies.
I admit the culture wars aren’t pleasant. They’re bitter, nasty, and divisive. There’s no easier way to lose a friend then to talk about cultural politics. They can also get awfully repetitive. How many gallons of ink—both real and electronic—have been spilled out on the abortion issue alone? Yet we’re not any closer to solving that whole mess than we were in 1973.
But I think Dreher’s right. The culture wars are as American as apple pie, if slightly less tasty. If we’ve learned one thing in class, it’s that America is a diverse nation. The statistic that “80% of Americans are Christian, and 90% believe in God” conceals an incredible richness of opinion. Two people can be exactly the same—same race, same religion, same age, same education—and still hold completely different opinions. Multiply that by a million, and you’ve got America.
That means there are always going to be debates over culture, and they’re always going to be nasty. If people aren’t arguing about abortion, they’ll argue about gay marriage. If not gay marriage, then they’ll talk about evolution. That’s just the way opinions are. If someone holds a belief very deeply, they’re naturally going to be passionate about it.
This is especially true where religion’s concerned. Conservative Christians aren’t against abortion because they hate women. They’re against it because they think it’s barbaric. Liberal Christians aren’t in favor of gay marriage because they hate the family. They just think all couples should be treated equally.
Those who say, “Stop! Enough already! Let’s have a truce!” ought to be careful what they wish for. We can end the culture wars. It’d be easy, really. All you need to do is get rid of opinions that make other people uncomfortable. If nobody talked about abortion, or gay marriage, or school prayer, then we wouldn’t have a culture war anymore. There’d be no need to get upset, because there would be nothing to get upset about.
You would kill the culture wars stone dead. You’d also be killing America. The culture wars express the diversity of American belief. Neuter that—declaw it—defang it—and you have nothing left but a gray, mushy middle. I’ll take a culture war over that any day.
Will Barack Obama end the culture wars? He couldn't if he wanted. In America, the culture war will never die, only wax and wane across multiple battlefields. When you live in a large, diverse, pluralistic democracy, it comes with the territory.
It’s become fashionable to bemoan the culture wars as the worst thing to happen to America since smallpox. Everybody hates the culture war. Liberals hate it, because they think it distracts from more important issues, things like health care and education. Conservatives hate it, because it signals a challenge to American traditions. Moderates hate it most of all, because they’re sick of being whipsawed between two equally zealous bunches of sign-waving, slogan-chanting crazies.
I admit the culture wars aren’t pleasant. They’re bitter, nasty, and divisive. There’s no easier way to lose a friend then to talk about cultural politics. They can also get awfully repetitive. How many gallons of ink—both real and electronic—have been spilled out on the abortion issue alone? Yet we’re not any closer to solving that whole mess than we were in 1973.
But I think Dreher’s right. The culture wars are as American as apple pie, if slightly less tasty. If we’ve learned one thing in class, it’s that America is a diverse nation. The statistic that “80% of Americans are Christian, and 90% believe in God” conceals an incredible richness of opinion. Two people can be exactly the same—same race, same religion, same age, same education—and still hold completely different opinions. Multiply that by a million, and you’ve got America.
That means there are always going to be debates over culture, and they’re always going to be nasty. If people aren’t arguing about abortion, they’ll argue about gay marriage. If not gay marriage, then they’ll talk about evolution. That’s just the way opinions are. If someone holds a belief very deeply, they’re naturally going to be passionate about it.
This is especially true where religion’s concerned. Conservative Christians aren’t against abortion because they hate women. They’re against it because they think it’s barbaric. Liberal Christians aren’t in favor of gay marriage because they hate the family. They just think all couples should be treated equally.
Those who say, “Stop! Enough already! Let’s have a truce!” ought to be careful what they wish for. We can end the culture wars. It’d be easy, really. All you need to do is get rid of opinions that make other people uncomfortable. If nobody talked about abortion, or gay marriage, or school prayer, then we wouldn’t have a culture war anymore. There’d be no need to get upset, because there would be nothing to get upset about.
You would kill the culture wars stone dead. You’d also be killing America. The culture wars express the diversity of American belief. Neuter that—declaw it—defang it—and you have nothing left but a gray, mushy middle. I’ll take a culture war over that any day.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Leftward, Ho!
Over at the conservative Catholic journal First Things, law professor and Jesuit priest Edward Oakes bemoans the “liberal creep” taking over society. Oakes, judging from this piece, is a rare breed—a true conservative. Not “conservative” like John McCain, or even like George W. Bush, but “conservative” in the original sense. He’s an Old World conservative, a believer in tradition, hierarchy, and mother church.
Oakes writes that liberalism has swallowed our political system whole. There’s no more diversity of thought. There are no radicals and conservatives anymore, just Conservative Liberals, Radical Liberals, and countless Liberal Liberals. He says:
With the exception of libertarian candidate Ron Paul and the radical-liberal Dennis Kucinich, all the candidates ran on the “Liberal Liberal” platform. This became glaringly obvious to me last September when the Republicans in Congress, after initially balking at the bailout package for the nation’s financial system, soon signed on to it, at least in enough numbers to ensure its passage.
But his real concern isn’t economics. Like any good conservative, he’s worried more about America’s soul than its pocketbook. If “liberal creep” continues, he argues, America will be headed to Hell in the mother of all handbaskets. Traditional values will erode, dissolved in the acid sea of modernity. Gay marriage and abortion are only the first step. Who knows what comes next?
I sympathize with Oakes—a little. Socially, America has been lurching leftward. Toleration for gay marriage would have been unthinkable two decades ago. Remember what happened to Clinton after “don’t ask, don’t tell?” If you don’t, let me fill you in: he took a thumpin’ in the 1994 midterm elections. And support for gay marriage will likely increase as the younger, more tolerant generation grows up.
But is this really “liberal creep”? I see it instead as a sign of American pragmatism. We’ve never been an ideological country. America has never embraced radical liberalism, libertarianism, utilitarianism, or any other –ism. We’ve always believed in live and let in, in doing your own thing, in different strokes for different folks. Accepting gay marriage is just the latest expression of our hands-off philosophy.
I’d like to ask Oakes: if you want “real conservatism” in America, where is going to come from? The Roman Catholic Church? Not when Catholics sit right in the middle of the political spectrum. Evangelical churches? Maybe, if they could ever agree on anything. A new American aristocracy? I don’t think we’ll be getting dukes and duchesses any time soon.
I think I’d be a little more open to Oakes’s arguments if he wasn’t so quick to cast all his opponents as damnable heretics. Even Reagan isn’t pure enough:
Not only did he not abolish the Department of Education, as he promised on the campaign trail, he also ran up budget deficits of $1.5 trillion over eight years.
Wow. You’re not a real conservative if you can’t eliminate the Department of Education? Those are pretty harsh standards. Oakes would sentence every Republican president since…Coolidge, I guess, to the lowest level of conservative hell, where there’s nothing to read but Noam Chomsky and nothing to listen to but Barbra Streisand.
Still, though, it’s worth hearing him out. It’s a nice reminder that America isn’t politically homogenous. There are a few minority thinkers out there, including old-fashioned conservatives like Oakes. And if we really are a pluralist, pragmatist society, we’ll listen to them now and then. Even when they think we’re on the highway to hell.
Oakes writes that liberalism has swallowed our political system whole. There’s no more diversity of thought. There are no radicals and conservatives anymore, just Conservative Liberals, Radical Liberals, and countless Liberal Liberals. He says:
With the exception of libertarian candidate Ron Paul and the radical-liberal Dennis Kucinich, all the candidates ran on the “Liberal Liberal” platform. This became glaringly obvious to me last September when the Republicans in Congress, after initially balking at the bailout package for the nation’s financial system, soon signed on to it, at least in enough numbers to ensure its passage.
But his real concern isn’t economics. Like any good conservative, he’s worried more about America’s soul than its pocketbook. If “liberal creep” continues, he argues, America will be headed to Hell in the mother of all handbaskets. Traditional values will erode, dissolved in the acid sea of modernity. Gay marriage and abortion are only the first step. Who knows what comes next?
I sympathize with Oakes—a little. Socially, America has been lurching leftward. Toleration for gay marriage would have been unthinkable two decades ago. Remember what happened to Clinton after “don’t ask, don’t tell?” If you don’t, let me fill you in: he took a thumpin’ in the 1994 midterm elections. And support for gay marriage will likely increase as the younger, more tolerant generation grows up.
But is this really “liberal creep”? I see it instead as a sign of American pragmatism. We’ve never been an ideological country. America has never embraced radical liberalism, libertarianism, utilitarianism, or any other –ism. We’ve always believed in live and let in, in doing your own thing, in different strokes for different folks. Accepting gay marriage is just the latest expression of our hands-off philosophy.
I’d like to ask Oakes: if you want “real conservatism” in America, where is going to come from? The Roman Catholic Church? Not when Catholics sit right in the middle of the political spectrum. Evangelical churches? Maybe, if they could ever agree on anything. A new American aristocracy? I don’t think we’ll be getting dukes and duchesses any time soon.
I think I’d be a little more open to Oakes’s arguments if he wasn’t so quick to cast all his opponents as damnable heretics. Even Reagan isn’t pure enough:
Not only did he not abolish the Department of Education, as he promised on the campaign trail, he also ran up budget deficits of $1.5 trillion over eight years.
Wow. You’re not a real conservative if you can’t eliminate the Department of Education? Those are pretty harsh standards. Oakes would sentence every Republican president since…Coolidge, I guess, to the lowest level of conservative hell, where there’s nothing to read but Noam Chomsky and nothing to listen to but Barbra Streisand.
Still, though, it’s worth hearing him out. It’s a nice reminder that America isn’t politically homogenous. There are a few minority thinkers out there, including old-fashioned conservatives like Oakes. And if we really are a pluralist, pragmatist society, we’ll listen to them now and then. Even when they think we’re on the highway to hell.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)