God, let's make a deal. I've been a good Catholic all Lent. I've kept my promises; I haven't so much as glanced at a sports website--ESPN, SI, FoxSports, and all the rest--all through March Madness.
I ask only this in return. Please don't let Terry McAuliffe become Governor of Virginia. Please, please, please. Please.
If you're doubting me, God, I refer you to this Dana Milbank piece in the Washington Post:
Now McAuliffe, who speaks almost entirely in exclamation points, is applying that same zeal to being a man of the people. As part of his campaign, he has spent a day working as a busboy and a bartender. He plans to labor on a ship. "I've been an African American barber," the Irish candidate reported to his hosts at the landfill in Lorton yesterday. "You know, about three Saturdays ago, there was a grass fire out here," he told the workers at the waste plant. "You know who was on the firetruck to put it out? I was! I was a fireman that day. . . . I got those hoses out so fast, you would not have a plant today if I had not been on that truck. Saved your plant. Probably saved Northern Virginia."
I have to ask: why do Democrats get a pass when it comes to faux-populist posing? If a Republican stumped around the state like this, dressing up as a fireman or a barber, the media would laugh them out of town.
Yet McAuliffe does it and nobody bats an eye. How to explain it? God, that's my second request to you. Please illuminate this problem.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The David Brooks...OF THE FUTURE!
Politico provides an interesting profile of Ross Douthat, the conservative blooger and author taking Bill Kristol's place at the New York Times.
For those of you who care about my opinion--and if you've read this far, I'm going to assume you care at least a little--I think this is a great decision, both for conservatives and for the Times. The Grey Lady gets an articulate conservative who won't offend the paper's target audience. No Greenwich Village liberal is going to choke to death on their Zabar's bagel while reading one of Douthat's columns.
But that doesn't mean Douthat is wishy-washy, the kind of conservative writes things like "Barack Obama is the only real conservative in America!" or "I think conservatives ought to embrace big government!" I've read his blog for a couple months and can personally vouch for his conservatise credentials. That and a couple bucks will get you a nice Starbucks latte, but oh well. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.
When David Brooks came to UNC, he compared his position with the Times to being like "the chief rabbi in Mecca." Well, now he's got some company in the synagogue.
For those of you who care about my opinion--and if you've read this far, I'm going to assume you care at least a little--I think this is a great decision, both for conservatives and for the Times. The Grey Lady gets an articulate conservative who won't offend the paper's target audience. No Greenwich Village liberal is going to choke to death on their Zabar's bagel while reading one of Douthat's columns.
But that doesn't mean Douthat is wishy-washy, the kind of conservative writes things like "Barack Obama is the only real conservative in America!" or "I think conservatives ought to embrace big government!" I've read his blog for a couple months and can personally vouch for his conservatise credentials. That and a couple bucks will get you a nice Starbucks latte, but oh well. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.
When David Brooks came to UNC, he compared his position with the Times to being like "the chief rabbi in Mecca." Well, now he's got some company in the synagogue.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Gloom and Doom in New York
Don't look now, but the New York GOP seems to be going the way of dinosaurs, the dodo and disco:
Even as Jim Tedisco plans an all-night sprint of campaigning leading up to tomorrow's 20th CD special election, Republicans are privately lowering expectations and rather gloomily suggesting that this could be the beginning of the end for them in New York. Again.
One GOP consultant who isn't working on Tedisco's camapign suggested this race could actually end up being a "perfect storm," leading to calls for the ouster of party leaders all the way up the food chain.
The Dems have out-raised, out-spent, out-organized, out-everythinged the GOP in this race. The 20th used to be a fairly safe GOP district, but there's no such thing in New York anymore.
A loss in the 20th would send shockwaves all the way to the top of the party. Foolish of Michael Steele, really, to hype this contest as a bellwether for the Republican Party.
Too late now, though. Expectations are like balloons; once they get high enough, there's no pulling them back down. I don't think a defeat in the 20th will end Steele's career at the RNC. But rest assured that, if Tedisco goes down, Steele's seat will get a good deal hotter.
Even as Jim Tedisco plans an all-night sprint of campaigning leading up to tomorrow's 20th CD special election, Republicans are privately lowering expectations and rather gloomily suggesting that this could be the beginning of the end for them in New York. Again.
One GOP consultant who isn't working on Tedisco's camapign suggested this race could actually end up being a "perfect storm," leading to calls for the ouster of party leaders all the way up the food chain.
The Dems have out-raised, out-spent, out-organized, out-everythinged the GOP in this race. The 20th used to be a fairly safe GOP district, but there's no such thing in New York anymore.
A loss in the 20th would send shockwaves all the way to the top of the party. Foolish of Michael Steele, really, to hype this contest as a bellwether for the Republican Party.
Too late now, though. Expectations are like balloons; once they get high enough, there's no pulling them back down. I don't think a defeat in the 20th will end Steele's career at the RNC. But rest assured that, if Tedisco goes down, Steele's seat will get a good deal hotter.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Obama at Notre Dame
James Thunder talks about "The Destruction of Notre Dame," and he isn't talking about the football team--though as an aside, I think Notre Dame's failure to fire Charlie Weis is nothing short of blasphemy. But enough of that.
No, what has Thunder concerned is The One's visit to the college that, more than any other, prides itself as exemplifying the teachings of The Original One.
By giving Obama a platform, Notre Dame is just making itself one more stop in Obamafest 2008, Barack's nationwide pity party. His appearance on "60 Minutes" and Jay Leno aren't political strategy. Their a rather needy attempt to win back the public's love.
It's the equivalent of one of those notes passed around during high school, the ones that said "Do You Like Me? Check Yes or No." And Notre Dame, by inviting Obama, is giving him a big ol' check in the "Yes" box.
But that's their privilege, I suppose. The flipside of being a private institution, able to make your own decisions, is that sometimes your decisions will be awfully stupid. Count this as one of them.
No, what has Thunder concerned is The One's visit to the college that, more than any other, prides itself as exemplifying the teachings of The Original One.
By giving Obama a platform, Notre Dame is just making itself one more stop in Obamafest 2008, Barack's nationwide pity party. His appearance on "60 Minutes" and Jay Leno aren't political strategy. Their a rather needy attempt to win back the public's love.
It's the equivalent of one of those notes passed around during high school, the ones that said "Do You Like Me? Check Yes or No." And Notre Dame, by inviting Obama, is giving him a big ol' check in the "Yes" box.
But that's their privilege, I suppose. The flipside of being a private institution, able to make your own decisions, is that sometimes your decisions will be awfully stupid. Count this as one of them.
With Friends Like These...
Though political junkies like myself are already droling over the prospect of an Arlen Specter-Chris Matthews matchup in the Pennsylvania Senate race, there's just one small issue. Specter might not even survive the primary:
Apparently paying a political price for his support of President Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan, longtime Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey 41 - 27 percent in a Republican primary for the 2010 Senate race, with 28 percent undecided, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
The rule of political thumb holds that, if an incumbent polls below 50%, he's in trouble.
If he polls below 45%, he's in dire trouble.
If he polls below 40%, he can apply for a spot on the endangered species list.
And if, as in Specter's case, he's below 30%...well, let's just say he might as well get started on his memoirs, prospectively titled "To My Constituents--F*** You!"
I'm not writing Specter off, though, because I'm sure the NRSC is going to throw its full weight behind him. That was enough to drag Lincoln Chafee across the finish line in 2006. And look how well that turned out! For the Democrats, I mean.
Apparently paying a political price for his support of President Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan, longtime Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey 41 - 27 percent in a Republican primary for the 2010 Senate race, with 28 percent undecided, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
The rule of political thumb holds that, if an incumbent polls below 50%, he's in trouble.
If he polls below 45%, he's in dire trouble.
If he polls below 40%, he can apply for a spot on the endangered species list.
And if, as in Specter's case, he's below 30%...well, let's just say he might as well get started on his memoirs, prospectively titled "To My Constituents--F*** You!"
I'm not writing Specter off, though, because I'm sure the NRSC is going to throw its full weight behind him. That was enough to drag Lincoln Chafee across the finish line in 2006. And look how well that turned out! For the Democrats, I mean.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Review: The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008
It’s comforting to know that even in these economic times, some people are still managing to turn a profit. One of these lucky few is Paul Krugman: Princeton professor, Nobel laureate and economic guru-in-residence at the New York Times. The recent financial crisis gave Krugman an opportunity to dust off his 1999 book “The Return of Depression Economics,” add a couple tidbits about subprime mortgages, and rechristen it “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008.” That, and a chance to add an extra $10 to the price tag.
Krugman’s book is a cautionary tale about how bad things can happen even when smart people do smart things. In fact, he argues that bad things often happen because of said smart people doing said smart things. Ever since the economic revolutions of Keynesianism and, later on, monetarism, we’ve gotten cocky. We think we’ve got all the answers. Writes Krugman in his new preface: “The kind of economic trouble that Asia experienced a decade ago, and that we’re all experiencing now, is precisely the sort of thing we thought we had learned to prevent.”
In theory, the recession of 2009 should have been easy to prevent. But the difference between in theory and in reality is as wide as the gap between going to California and going to the California Pizza Kitchen. One of the book’s recurring themes is that theory won’t always save us. If there existed a manual on “How to End a Depression,” and if you followed its instructions to the letter—increase spending, print more money, and so on—there would be no guarantee of success.
One might ask, then: if smart people can make such dumb mistakes, why should we trust Paul Krugman, the very epitome of the hyper-educated brainiacs who got us into this mess? First of all, the man has a Nobel Prize, and his book reminds us of that fact. Repeatedly. It’s mentioned on the front cover, the back cover, the dust jacket, the author’s biography—I expected the dedication to read “to my wife, my kids, and my lovely Nobel Prize.”
But there’s more to Krugman’s book than his shiny new medal. It overflows with fascinating stories of how booms lead to bubbles and how bubbles, inevitably, go bust. You think the housing market was the first time it happened? Krugman takes us on a world tour of economic crises, from the “Tequila crisis” that struck Latin America in 1994 to Japan’s “liquidity trap,” which devastated the island nation’s economy throughout much of the 1990s.
The book is more economic history than policy checklist; Krugman-the-professor pushes aside Krugman-the-pundit. But a final chapter, “The Return of Depression economics,” proposes a couple solutions. “What the world needs right now,” Krugman says, “is a rescue operation.” We need a jumbo-sized stimulus to jumpstart the economy; we also need a fresh approach to globalization. Very vague ideas, true, but give the man a break. It’s hard to solve a world crisis in just 191 pages. Even if you do happen to have a Nobel Prize.
Krugman’s book is a cautionary tale about how bad things can happen even when smart people do smart things. In fact, he argues that bad things often happen because of said smart people doing said smart things. Ever since the economic revolutions of Keynesianism and, later on, monetarism, we’ve gotten cocky. We think we’ve got all the answers. Writes Krugman in his new preface: “The kind of economic trouble that Asia experienced a decade ago, and that we’re all experiencing now, is precisely the sort of thing we thought we had learned to prevent.”
In theory, the recession of 2009 should have been easy to prevent. But the difference between in theory and in reality is as wide as the gap between going to California and going to the California Pizza Kitchen. One of the book’s recurring themes is that theory won’t always save us. If there existed a manual on “How to End a Depression,” and if you followed its instructions to the letter—increase spending, print more money, and so on—there would be no guarantee of success.
One might ask, then: if smart people can make such dumb mistakes, why should we trust Paul Krugman, the very epitome of the hyper-educated brainiacs who got us into this mess? First of all, the man has a Nobel Prize, and his book reminds us of that fact. Repeatedly. It’s mentioned on the front cover, the back cover, the dust jacket, the author’s biography—I expected the dedication to read “to my wife, my kids, and my lovely Nobel Prize.”
But there’s more to Krugman’s book than his shiny new medal. It overflows with fascinating stories of how booms lead to bubbles and how bubbles, inevitably, go bust. You think the housing market was the first time it happened? Krugman takes us on a world tour of economic crises, from the “Tequila crisis” that struck Latin America in 1994 to Japan’s “liquidity trap,” which devastated the island nation’s economy throughout much of the 1990s.
The book is more economic history than policy checklist; Krugman-the-professor pushes aside Krugman-the-pundit. But a final chapter, “The Return of Depression economics,” proposes a couple solutions. “What the world needs right now,” Krugman says, “is a rescue operation.” We need a jumbo-sized stimulus to jumpstart the economy; we also need a fresh approach to globalization. Very vague ideas, true, but give the man a break. It’s hard to solve a world crisis in just 191 pages. Even if you do happen to have a Nobel Prize.
Political Animals
Peggy Noonan asks whether Obama is a hedgehog or a fox. No, its not a racial thing; get that NY Post chimpanzee cartoon out of your mind.
The "hedgehog/fox" dichotomy, proposed by Isaiah Berlin, breaks people into two groups. There are the hedgehogs, who know one big thing, and the foxes, who know a whole lot of little things. Then there are the amoebas, who know only one little thing, but the less said about them the better.
So which is Obama? Noonan takes a look at his first few months in office and decides he's...neither, really:
In political leadership the hedgehog has certain significant advantages, focus and clarity of vision among them. Most presidents are one or the other. So far Mr. Obama seems neither.
That's the inevitable consequence, I guess, of being all about Change. Obama was going to Change Washington. He was going to Change politics. He would reach deep inside all of us an Change our hearts, Change our beliefs, Change our very souls.
His most fervent followers seemed to think that he wouldn't just stop there; he'd come to our houses and Change our kid's diapers and Change our kids linens and Change the oil in the car, which we'd been meaning to do for a while but never really got around too.
Well, Barack, you're in the White House now, and it's a lot harder to talk about Changing Washington when you are Washington. It's as if somebody told LeBron James that he wasn't allowed to dunk anymore. He would have to completely change his game.
So far, Obama isn't doing so hot at changing his game. He's switching from one persona to another like a speed-dating schizophrenic. Barack Obama, hard-headed realist. No, wait: Barack Obama, FDR redux. Wait, lemme try again: Barack Obama, optimist-in-chief. No, wait...
Until Obama figures out what he is he'll be neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He's a jellyfish: brainless, spineless, and drifting wherever the current takes him.
The "hedgehog/fox" dichotomy, proposed by Isaiah Berlin, breaks people into two groups. There are the hedgehogs, who know one big thing, and the foxes, who know a whole lot of little things. Then there are the amoebas, who know only one little thing, but the less said about them the better.
So which is Obama? Noonan takes a look at his first few months in office and decides he's...neither, really:
In political leadership the hedgehog has certain significant advantages, focus and clarity of vision among them. Most presidents are one or the other. So far Mr. Obama seems neither.
That's the inevitable consequence, I guess, of being all about Change. Obama was going to Change Washington. He was going to Change politics. He would reach deep inside all of us an Change our hearts, Change our beliefs, Change our very souls.
His most fervent followers seemed to think that he wouldn't just stop there; he'd come to our houses and Change our kid's diapers and Change our kids linens and Change the oil in the car, which we'd been meaning to do for a while but never really got around too.
Well, Barack, you're in the White House now, and it's a lot harder to talk about Changing Washington when you are Washington. It's as if somebody told LeBron James that he wasn't allowed to dunk anymore. He would have to completely change his game.
So far, Obama isn't doing so hot at changing his game. He's switching from one persona to another like a speed-dating schizophrenic. Barack Obama, hard-headed realist. No, wait: Barack Obama, FDR redux. Wait, lemme try again: Barack Obama, optimist-in-chief. No, wait...
Until Obama figures out what he is he'll be neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He's a jellyfish: brainless, spineless, and drifting wherever the current takes him.
Panic at the White House
Fred Barnes thinks that Obama and his much-vaunted "brain trust" have hit the panic button. Obama was struggling even before the AIG kerfuffle came to light, but as Barnes points out:
What goes on in Washington usually comes across as background noise to the public, but not this time. Bonuses for AIG executives are like the infamous Bridge to Nowhere--an issue that's broken through outside Washington.
Obama's opponents now have a concrete issue, something tangible, something that they can grab hold of and clobber the president with.
The AIG issue is further proof that Obama is losing the image wars. With better PR, he could have turned the issue to his advantage: those greedy CEOs are at it again! I'm sure the American people would have been more than willing to take another whack at that long-dead horse.
Instead, it rebounded on Obama's head, and we're finally seeing Mr. Cool. During the campaign, we were told over and over again how "calm" and "levelheaded" Obama was, how he would never lose his grip in a crisis. John McCain was the crazy one, and Obama the cool one.
The crisis is here. Let's see if Obama can get back on his feet.
What goes on in Washington usually comes across as background noise to the public, but not this time. Bonuses for AIG executives are like the infamous Bridge to Nowhere--an issue that's broken through outside Washington.
Obama's opponents now have a concrete issue, something tangible, something that they can grab hold of and clobber the president with.
The AIG issue is further proof that Obama is losing the image wars. With better PR, he could have turned the issue to his advantage: those greedy CEOs are at it again! I'm sure the American people would have been more than willing to take another whack at that long-dead horse.
Instead, it rebounded on Obama's head, and we're finally seeing Mr. Cool. During the campaign, we were told over and over again how "calm" and "levelheaded" Obama was, how he would never lose his grip in a crisis. John McCain was the crazy one, and Obama the cool one.
The crisis is here. Let's see if Obama can get back on his feet.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Whitman For Governor
Another hint for Republicans seeking to regain their old mojo. The GOP dominated politics in the late 90s and early 2000s because they had, in sports terms, a deep bench. They won a majority of governorships in the early 90s--including big states like New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas--giving them a nationally recognized group of leaders.
Governors like George W. Bush and Tom Ridge could put conservative policies into action at a statewide level; they could also produce new strategies, both in terms of politics and policy, and share them with their fellow Republican governors.
The GOP also benefited because they had a whole host of attractice, articulate spokespeople. Governors like Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey and Jeb Bush in Florida could make the case for conservatism without looking like knuckledraggers.
Finally, by holding onto these governors after the 1998 election, Republicans were able to play a major role in redrawing congressional boundaries after the 2000 census. Republican gerrymandering swelled GOP ranks in congress; though they lost control in 2006, things would've been a lot worse without those favorable districts.
All of which means this is a good sign for the GOP. Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO, is looking like a serious candidate for the governor of California. If she wins she instantly becomes the GOP's newest star. She'd become Pali, without all the baggage of 2012.
I know that the current governor of California is a Rpeublican. But Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican the same way Mike Bloomberg was. You always get the feeling that he wakes up in the morning and lies in bed wondering, "Let's see...I'm a Republican because...why?"
Whitman might be the real deal, even if she says she's running as a populist. She's got the money to run a statewide campaign in California, and she's going to need it; running for governor of California is an absurdly expensive proposition. Don't try it unless you've got money coming out the wazoo.
I look forward to seeing how Whitman runs her campaign. Even if she loses, there's always the possibility of running to replace Dianne Feinstein in 2012.
Governors like George W. Bush and Tom Ridge could put conservative policies into action at a statewide level; they could also produce new strategies, both in terms of politics and policy, and share them with their fellow Republican governors.
The GOP also benefited because they had a whole host of attractice, articulate spokespeople. Governors like Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey and Jeb Bush in Florida could make the case for conservatism without looking like knuckledraggers.
Finally, by holding onto these governors after the 1998 election, Republicans were able to play a major role in redrawing congressional boundaries after the 2000 census. Republican gerrymandering swelled GOP ranks in congress; though they lost control in 2006, things would've been a lot worse without those favorable districts.
All of which means this is a good sign for the GOP. Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO, is looking like a serious candidate for the governor of California. If she wins she instantly becomes the GOP's newest star. She'd become Pali, without all the baggage of 2012.
I know that the current governor of California is a Rpeublican. But Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican the same way Mike Bloomberg was. You always get the feeling that he wakes up in the morning and lies in bed wondering, "Let's see...I'm a Republican because...why?"
Whitman might be the real deal, even if she says she's running as a populist. She's got the money to run a statewide campaign in California, and she's going to need it; running for governor of California is an absurdly expensive proposition. Don't try it unless you've got money coming out the wazoo.
I look forward to seeing how Whitman runs her campaign. Even if she loses, there's always the possibility of running to replace Dianne Feinstein in 2012.
NoVa Surprise
When solving a problem, my grandfather always told me, begin at the beginning. OK, my grandfather never actually said that. But it's still a good piece of advice.
The Republican Party's problem is clear. For the past few years the party has been hemorrhaging support among middle-class, moderate voters. The suburbs around southern and western cities--Denver, Phoenix, Raleigh, Orlando--used to vote reliably Republican. Now they've turned a toxic shade of blue.
If we were to try to pinpoint where this trend began, we ought to start in Virginia. Virginia voted for Obama in 2008 because the suburbs of northern Virginia, especially in Fairfax County, voted so heavily for the Democrats that they swamped Republican majorities elsewhere in the state.
That's why Republicans should take some encouragement in this story from the Washington Post:
The narrow victory in Tuesday's special election to succeed former Braddock District supervisor Sharon Bulova, who became chairman last month, heartened Republicans, especially those who have argued that a pragmatic, centrist candidate focused on neighborhood-level needs could win despite the Democratic tide that has overtaken Northern Virginia.
"Fairfax County is competitive again," said former congressman Tom Davis, a moderate Republican who often clashed with his party's conservative wing. The county's voters "are smart people. They want pragmatic leadership."
Does this mean Republicans can start wooing back all those white-collar office park workers they lost during the Bush years? Maybe not right away. Nothing in politics is instantaneous.
But John Cook's victory should teach two important lessons.
1. The GOP ruled Washington for so long it lost sight of local issues. It conceived everything in national terms and forgot how to listen to its constituents back home. Cook's victory proves that Tip O'Neill's adage never goes out of style--all politics really is local.
That means there will never be a GOP grand strategy. If Republicans want to return to relevance, they can't expect some think tank in Washington, DC to spit out a study on "The Perfect Way to Win Elections." Victory will come from the grassroots.
2. The other interesting thing is how similar Cook's strategy looks to George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism:
Cook is among those in the Virginia GOP who blame the party's slide in recent years on a misguided embrace of divisive social issues, including abortion, same-sex marriage and gun rights. The approach, they say, has allowed Democrats to lay claim to such day-to-day issues as transportation and education.
Granted, since GWB's term in office, "compassionate conservative" has become an obscenity, the same way "neoconservative" has been permanently stained.
But there's still an element of truth to Bush's strategy. He refused to concede any ground to the Democrats; he tackled issues like education with No Child Left Behind, and healthcare with his prescription drug plan.
Everyone giggles when they recall Bush saying "I'm a uniter, not a divider." It's a punchline. It's a joke. It's like saying "Mission Accomplished." Yet if Republicans want to win again in suburbs like Fairfax County, they really do have to work on their uniting skills.
The Republican Party's problem is clear. For the past few years the party has been hemorrhaging support among middle-class, moderate voters. The suburbs around southern and western cities--Denver, Phoenix, Raleigh, Orlando--used to vote reliably Republican. Now they've turned a toxic shade of blue.
If we were to try to pinpoint where this trend began, we ought to start in Virginia. Virginia voted for Obama in 2008 because the suburbs of northern Virginia, especially in Fairfax County, voted so heavily for the Democrats that they swamped Republican majorities elsewhere in the state.
That's why Republicans should take some encouragement in this story from the Washington Post:
The narrow victory in Tuesday's special election to succeed former Braddock District supervisor Sharon Bulova, who became chairman last month, heartened Republicans, especially those who have argued that a pragmatic, centrist candidate focused on neighborhood-level needs could win despite the Democratic tide that has overtaken Northern Virginia.
"Fairfax County is competitive again," said former congressman Tom Davis, a moderate Republican who often clashed with his party's conservative wing. The county's voters "are smart people. They want pragmatic leadership."
Does this mean Republicans can start wooing back all those white-collar office park workers they lost during the Bush years? Maybe not right away. Nothing in politics is instantaneous.
But John Cook's victory should teach two important lessons.
1. The GOP ruled Washington for so long it lost sight of local issues. It conceived everything in national terms and forgot how to listen to its constituents back home. Cook's victory proves that Tip O'Neill's adage never goes out of style--all politics really is local.
That means there will never be a GOP grand strategy. If Republicans want to return to relevance, they can't expect some think tank in Washington, DC to spit out a study on "The Perfect Way to Win Elections." Victory will come from the grassroots.
2. The other interesting thing is how similar Cook's strategy looks to George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism:
Cook is among those in the Virginia GOP who blame the party's slide in recent years on a misguided embrace of divisive social issues, including abortion, same-sex marriage and gun rights. The approach, they say, has allowed Democrats to lay claim to such day-to-day issues as transportation and education.
Granted, since GWB's term in office, "compassionate conservative" has become an obscenity, the same way "neoconservative" has been permanently stained.
But there's still an element of truth to Bush's strategy. He refused to concede any ground to the Democrats; he tackled issues like education with No Child Left Behind, and healthcare with his prescription drug plan.
Everyone giggles when they recall Bush saying "I'm a uniter, not a divider." It's a punchline. It's a joke. It's like saying "Mission Accomplished." Yet if Republicans want to win again in suburbs like Fairfax County, they really do have to work on their uniting skills.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
New York, New York
Things look awfully grim for David Paterson, New York's accidental governor. In fact, I'd venture a guess that if Eliot Spitzer had decided to hang on to the governor's seat, he'd be more popular today than Patterson is.
It's too early yet to dig Paterson's grave. But if this poll is accurate, we can at least start picking out a headstone:
Voters say by 55 percent to 20 percent that they would prefer another candidate if Paterson runs again in 2010.
When only one in five voters want you back in office...that sends a pretty clear signal.
Paterson got off to a bad start and has never really found his footing. So far, his biggest accomplishment has been to pick a fight with Saturday Night Live. Though the poll doesn't say, I imagine that "sticking it to SNL" ranks fairly low on a list of voter concerns.
It's too early yet to dig Paterson's grave. But if this poll is accurate, we can at least start picking out a headstone:
Voters say by 55 percent to 20 percent that they would prefer another candidate if Paterson runs again in 2010.
When only one in five voters want you back in office...that sends a pretty clear signal.
Paterson got off to a bad start and has never really found his footing. So far, his biggest accomplishment has been to pick a fight with Saturday Night Live. Though the poll doesn't say, I imagine that "sticking it to SNL" ranks fairly low on a list of voter concerns.
To Be Perfectly Frank
What does Frank Rich do all week? He doesn't write theater reviews anymore, and I don't think he critiques books or movies, either. So unless he's started writing about the stock market, his only responsibility is writing his Sunday column.
If that's true--I feel very sorry for Mr. Rich. There are three things I can count on every Sunday--church, doughnuts, and a wretched column from Frank Rich. He never disappoints.
Rich has only two gears: "Bush/Republicans are horrible" and "Barack Obama is brilliant/Godlike." When Rich talks about Obama, he writes in the sort of starry-eyed, hero-worshiping style most people reserve for sports legends and cult leaders.
Well, Barack Obama has been looking significantly less brilliant and/or Godlike over the past couple weeks, so Rich has gone back to beating the dead horse of "Republicans are the spawn of Satan." Never mind that he's been beating that horse so long he's reduced it to a pulpy jelly.
Today's column is just another in a long series of interchangeable Frank Rich columns. Titled "The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off," Rich gloats that...what, really? I'm not quite sure. And I read it twice.
The gist of his argument seems to be that, because times are hard, people don't care about cultural issues anymore. That, Rich exults, means that pro-life, anti-gay marriage folks like Pat Robertson and Tony Perkins are out of business.
This fits in perfectly with Rich's longer-running argument, which he has swiped rather shamelessly from the similarly-named Thomas Frank. Those evil conservatives, T. Frank and Frank R. argue, have used social issues like abortion and gay marriage to hornswoggle Middle Americans to vote against their economic interests.
Conservatives do this because...they're jerks, I guess. That's never really fleshed out in Rich's column. Rich sees Republicans as cartoon villains along the lines of Snidely Whiplash.
Really, this column reveals why liberals like Rich will never win over Middle America. In his mind, ignorance is the only explanation for social conservatism. If only those hayseed flyover yokels read more of The New Yorker! Then they'd see the error of their ways.
The Franks miss the fact that, to many Middle Americans, social issues and economic issues intertwine. Their moral code isn't imposed on them by some nefarious outside force; it was created in their community, and their community sustains it.
Middle Americans "cling" to their social conservatism because it gives a little structure to their life. When they vote for Republicans, they might be voting against their economic interests, but they're also voting to uphold their social interests. Liberals have no interest in understanding this.
In conclusion: Frank Rich is wrong, and I hate him. Maybe not hate. Hate is too strong a word for an intellectual clown like Rich. Feel sorry for him, more like it.
If that's true--I feel very sorry for Mr. Rich. There are three things I can count on every Sunday--church, doughnuts, and a wretched column from Frank Rich. He never disappoints.
Rich has only two gears: "Bush/Republicans are horrible" and "Barack Obama is brilliant/Godlike." When Rich talks about Obama, he writes in the sort of starry-eyed, hero-worshiping style most people reserve for sports legends and cult leaders.
Well, Barack Obama has been looking significantly less brilliant and/or Godlike over the past couple weeks, so Rich has gone back to beating the dead horse of "Republicans are the spawn of Satan." Never mind that he's been beating that horse so long he's reduced it to a pulpy jelly.
Today's column is just another in a long series of interchangeable Frank Rich columns. Titled "The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off," Rich gloats that...what, really? I'm not quite sure. And I read it twice.
The gist of his argument seems to be that, because times are hard, people don't care about cultural issues anymore. That, Rich exults, means that pro-life, anti-gay marriage folks like Pat Robertson and Tony Perkins are out of business.
This fits in perfectly with Rich's longer-running argument, which he has swiped rather shamelessly from the similarly-named Thomas Frank. Those evil conservatives, T. Frank and Frank R. argue, have used social issues like abortion and gay marriage to hornswoggle Middle Americans to vote against their economic interests.
Conservatives do this because...they're jerks, I guess. That's never really fleshed out in Rich's column. Rich sees Republicans as cartoon villains along the lines of Snidely Whiplash.
Really, this column reveals why liberals like Rich will never win over Middle America. In his mind, ignorance is the only explanation for social conservatism. If only those hayseed flyover yokels read more of The New Yorker! Then they'd see the error of their ways.
The Franks miss the fact that, to many Middle Americans, social issues and economic issues intertwine. Their moral code isn't imposed on them by some nefarious outside force; it was created in their community, and their community sustains it.
Middle Americans "cling" to their social conservatism because it gives a little structure to their life. When they vote for Republicans, they might be voting against their economic interests, but they're also voting to uphold their social interests. Liberals have no interest in understanding this.
In conclusion: Frank Rich is wrong, and I hate him. Maybe not hate. Hate is too strong a word for an intellectual clown like Rich. Feel sorry for him, more like it.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Money
Grr. I know I'm probably in the minority here--and definitely in the minority among my fellow college students--but Jon Stewart really gets on my nerves.
Yeah, he's a funny guy. Tremendously funny. Outrageously funny. Roll-over-on-the-floor-laughing-until-your-appendix-ruptures kind of funny. We haven't had a TV comic this talented since Johnny Carson.
But being funny can't excuse being a pompous ass. Just because you're funny doesn't mean that every word that drops from your lip is a beautifully-shaped pearl of wisdom and truth.
Yet that's the way Stewart acts. He has set himself up as the Guardian of the Free Press, the Defender of Democracy, the Vigilant Watchman of the Fourth Estate. I don't know if things were different in the past, but now he takes himself more seriously than does, say, a bloviator like Chris Matthews.
His little spat with Jim Cramer is a case in point. Look, Cramer's an entertainer. He's just like Stewart, in that both guys set out to amuse their audience.
What gives Stewart the right, then, to get all huffy when Cramer criticizes Obama? Yeah, Cramer dishes out some lousy stock advice. If you followed his picks to the letter, you're probably sitting in a cardboard box somewhere.
But Stewart has the gall to try to crucify Cramer because of that? As I said only a post ago--do Cramer's mistakes invalidate everything he says from now on? Good God! If that was the standard we used, every television pundit would be worth less than their weight in lint.
Mark Hemingway of National Review does a much better job of summarizing my complaint than I myself can. Stewart bugs me. I can't quite articulate it yet. When I do, I'll be sure to let you know. And by "you," I mean my loyal reader, and by loyal reader, I mean my mother.
Yeah, he's a funny guy. Tremendously funny. Outrageously funny. Roll-over-on-the-floor-laughing-until-your-appendix-ruptures kind of funny. We haven't had a TV comic this talented since Johnny Carson.
But being funny can't excuse being a pompous ass. Just because you're funny doesn't mean that every word that drops from your lip is a beautifully-shaped pearl of wisdom and truth.
Yet that's the way Stewart acts. He has set himself up as the Guardian of the Free Press, the Defender of Democracy, the Vigilant Watchman of the Fourth Estate. I don't know if things were different in the past, but now he takes himself more seriously than does, say, a bloviator like Chris Matthews.
His little spat with Jim Cramer is a case in point. Look, Cramer's an entertainer. He's just like Stewart, in that both guys set out to amuse their audience.
What gives Stewart the right, then, to get all huffy when Cramer criticizes Obama? Yeah, Cramer dishes out some lousy stock advice. If you followed his picks to the letter, you're probably sitting in a cardboard box somewhere.
But Stewart has the gall to try to crucify Cramer because of that? As I said only a post ago--do Cramer's mistakes invalidate everything he says from now on? Good God! If that was the standard we used, every television pundit would be worth less than their weight in lint.
Mark Hemingway of National Review does a much better job of summarizing my complaint than I myself can. Stewart bugs me. I can't quite articulate it yet. When I do, I'll be sure to let you know. And by "you," I mean my loyal reader, and by loyal reader, I mean my mother.
The Great Debate
P.J. O'Rourke is the last conservative I would have expected to come out as a champion of the pro-life cause. I always thought of him as the Republican Party's resident libertarian: always on hand to make some wisecrack or another about the dangers of the government meddling in our lives.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I read his latest column, a searing attack on Obama's stem-cell sophistry. Fatherhood turns even the most committed libertarian into a pro-lifer, I guess.
I don't really buy the first part of his argument, when he writes:
Let's look at the various things science has "known" in the past 3,000 years.
Lightning is the sneeze of Thor.
The periodic table consists of Earth, Wind, and Fire and a recording of "Got To Get You into My Life."
The world is flat with signs saying "Here Be Democrats" near the edges.
You can turn lead into gold without first selling your Citibank stock at a huge loss.
Hey, you leave science out of this, P.J.! Just because it's been wrong in the past doesn't mean we should ignore it forever. After all, if a politician lies once, does that mean we should assume that he's lying every time he opens his mouth thereafter?
Wait, I actually know how O'Rourke would answer that one.
But regardless. The strongest argument against Obama's stem-cell policy is that it's anti-science, that it's built on ideology and not on scientifically verifiable facts.
Obama ignores the enormous breakthroughs that have come about through research on adult stem cells. Instead, he prefers to stick it to everyone who believes that creating embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them is wrong.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I read his latest column, a searing attack on Obama's stem-cell sophistry. Fatherhood turns even the most committed libertarian into a pro-lifer, I guess.
I don't really buy the first part of his argument, when he writes:
Let's look at the various things science has "known" in the past 3,000 years.
Lightning is the sneeze of Thor.
The periodic table consists of Earth, Wind, and Fire and a recording of "Got To Get You into My Life."
The world is flat with signs saying "Here Be Democrats" near the edges.
You can turn lead into gold without first selling your Citibank stock at a huge loss.
Hey, you leave science out of this, P.J.! Just because it's been wrong in the past doesn't mean we should ignore it forever. After all, if a politician lies once, does that mean we should assume that he's lying every time he opens his mouth thereafter?
Wait, I actually know how O'Rourke would answer that one.
But regardless. The strongest argument against Obama's stem-cell policy is that it's anti-science, that it's built on ideology and not on scientifically verifiable facts.
Obama ignores the enormous breakthroughs that have come about through research on adult stem cells. Instead, he prefers to stick it to everyone who believes that creating embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them is wrong.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Rand, Revitalized
Over at the Wall Street Journal, Yaron Brooks asks: Is Rand relevant? Yes, he says, but Brook is hardly an unbiased source; he is, after all, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. It's like asking the president of Kellogg what the most important meal of the day is. The answer's a foregone conclusion.
I wish I could offer my own two cents, but I confess that my knowledge of economics is pitifully, pathetically small. Like most college students, I learned about economics from two sources: my Econ 101 textbook and "Freakonomics." I've never read Rand--or Friedman, or Hayek, or Keynes or Smith or Galbraith or anyone remotely like that.
I have to say one thing, though. Rand fans always make me a little uneasy. Their love of "Atlas Shrugged" borders on religious reverence. God help you if you dare question their holy writ. I don't think it's healthy to be that devoted to anything--whether book, or person, or political philosophy.
I wish I could offer my own two cents, but I confess that my knowledge of economics is pitifully, pathetically small. Like most college students, I learned about economics from two sources: my Econ 101 textbook and "Freakonomics." I've never read Rand--or Friedman, or Hayek, or Keynes or Smith or Galbraith or anyone remotely like that.
I have to say one thing, though. Rand fans always make me a little uneasy. Their love of "Atlas Shrugged" borders on religious reverence. God help you if you dare question their holy writ. I don't think it's healthy to be that devoted to anything--whether book, or person, or political philosophy.
Man of Steele
From savior to goat in less than a month? Rick Moran takes a look at the troubles bedeviling newly elected RNC chairman--and erstwhile savior of the GOP--Michael Steele.
What's wrong with Steele? Everything, if you believe Moran. It's not just the verbal gaffes, though they certainly aren't helping him. Apparently his efforts to shake up the structure of the RNC have led to mass confusion. Even worse, it seems a few skeletons might be lurking in Steele's closet.
I say give the guy a chance. Conservatives have always been too willing to devour their own. Though Steele might turn out to be a dud, it's hard to judge anyone after one month in office. Give him half a year. If the GOP's still in disarray, and if Steele still sticks his foot in his mouth at every opportunity, then we can talk about kicking him out. Not until then, though.
What's wrong with Steele? Everything, if you believe Moran. It's not just the verbal gaffes, though they certainly aren't helping him. Apparently his efforts to shake up the structure of the RNC have led to mass confusion. Even worse, it seems a few skeletons might be lurking in Steele's closet.
I say give the guy a chance. Conservatives have always been too willing to devour their own. Though Steele might turn out to be a dud, it's hard to judge anyone after one month in office. Give him half a year. If the GOP's still in disarray, and if Steele still sticks his foot in his mouth at every opportunity, then we can talk about kicking him out. Not until then, though.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Mayor Ensign?
First, a disclaimer. I know that Washington, DC politics--by which I mean the actual business of running the city of Washington--is pretty obscure stuff. Most Americans don't get hot and bothered about gun rights or school choice in our nation's capital. Washington, DC might be the capital, but it's still a fairly dinky city, and it will never draw much media attention.
That being said...it's interesting to read this article about how Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, is taking the lead on issues relating to the administration of the city.
It got me thinking: could Ensign be setting himself up as a presidential candidate in 2012? He has the resume. He's from a swing state--Nevada. He has governmental experience, but not so much that he seems like a creature of the establishment. He looks presidential, certainly, having perhaps the best head of hair in politics.
It's only a thought. Perhaps there's nothing to it. But I'll be interested to see how Ensign handles himself over the next few months. If he joins conservatives like Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn in leading the charge against Obama, it might hint at his own ambitions to the Oval Office.
That being said...it's interesting to read this article about how Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, is taking the lead on issues relating to the administration of the city.
It got me thinking: could Ensign be setting himself up as a presidential candidate in 2012? He has the resume. He's from a swing state--Nevada. He has governmental experience, but not so much that he seems like a creature of the establishment. He looks presidential, certainly, having perhaps the best head of hair in politics.
It's only a thought. Perhaps there's nothing to it. But I'll be interested to see how Ensign handles himself over the next few months. If he joins conservatives like Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn in leading the charge against Obama, it might hint at his own ambitions to the Oval Office.
The Times, It is a Changin'
Bill Kristol is out; Ross Douthat is in. George Packer of the New Yorker muses on what it all means, and speculates as to what sort of columnist Douthat will be.
Packer's prognosis: better, at least, then most of those other clowns on the NYT's editorial page. As he rightly notes, most of the Grey Lady's columnists have lapsed into self-parody. Week in, week out, it's always the same. Allow me to offer a one-sentence summary of each writer:
Thomas Friedman: America needs to be more competitive and needs to use more green power.
Maureen Dowd: I watched a movie this week that really reminded me how much I hate George W. Bush.
Frank Rich: I watched a movie this week that really reminded me how much I hate Republicans in general.
David Brooks: Barack Obama is trying to do too much, too quickly; also, I really like Edmund Burke.
Paul Krugman: Barack Obama is not doing enough, and not doing it fast enough; also, I really like John Maynard Keynes.
Nicholas Kristof: Bad things are happening in Africa, and you should be concerned about it.
Bob Herbert: Bad things are happening in America, and you should be concerned about it.
Gail Collins: Who?
Packer's prognosis: better, at least, then most of those other clowns on the NYT's editorial page. As he rightly notes, most of the Grey Lady's columnists have lapsed into self-parody. Week in, week out, it's always the same. Allow me to offer a one-sentence summary of each writer:
Thomas Friedman: America needs to be more competitive and needs to use more green power.
Maureen Dowd: I watched a movie this week that really reminded me how much I hate George W. Bush.
Frank Rich: I watched a movie this week that really reminded me how much I hate Republicans in general.
David Brooks: Barack Obama is trying to do too much, too quickly; also, I really like Edmund Burke.
Paul Krugman: Barack Obama is not doing enough, and not doing it fast enough; also, I really like John Maynard Keynes.
Nicholas Kristof: Bad things are happening in Africa, and you should be concerned about it.
Bob Herbert: Bad things are happening in America, and you should be concerned about it.
Gail Collins: Who?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Image Wars
Ouch! There's no pundit half--nay, a quarter--as vicious as Camille Paglia when she gets worked up. Her newest polemic is aimed at Obama's advisors, those "clumsy, smirky" guys she thinks are dragging down the president:
First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?
A bit over the top, certainly. It seems a bit juvenile to mock Geithner and Orszag because they look like geeks. They are geeks. That's why Obama put them in charge.
Paglia has always been more concerned with style and image rather than substance. In tis case, though, she makes a good point. Even if Obama's programs are working, he, or at least his advisers, seem awfully tone-deaf when it comes to making their case to the public.
Confidence is the most important thing right now. The Obama White House isn't projecting it. That's why Paglia picks up on.
First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?
A bit over the top, certainly. It seems a bit juvenile to mock Geithner and Orszag because they look like geeks. They are geeks. That's why Obama put them in charge.
Paglia has always been more concerned with style and image rather than substance. In tis case, though, she makes a good point. Even if Obama's programs are working, he, or at least his advisers, seem awfully tone-deaf when it comes to making their case to the public.
Confidence is the most important thing right now. The Obama White House isn't projecting it. That's why Paglia picks up on.
Putting Your Mouth Where the Money Is
Mark Sanford has declared he will reject some--some, not all--of South Carolina's share of the stimulus. Is it a political stunt? Of course! Everything a politician does is a political stunt; this one just happens to be stuntier--pardon the neologism--than most. If Sanford were 100% sincere in his beliefs he'd turn down all the money, no questions asked.
But that, of course, would make the citizens of the Palmetto State howl with outrage. And even when you're a second-term governor trying to cater to your party's right wing, it's never wise to tick off your constituents. It sort of decreases your value as a presidential contender, don't you know.
Sanford's action shows the quandary the GOP is in. They hate the stimulus, but they can't produce any alternative. Intellectual atrophy has left the Republicans idealess. All they can do is shout "No!" While that might be part of a winning strategy, it's not a strategy itself.
So if Sanford really wants to take on the mantle of Republican leadership, let's see how he performs over the next year. Can he create a "second way," a new program for Republican governance? Or is he going to keep shouting "No" until his lungs give out?
But that, of course, would make the citizens of the Palmetto State howl with outrage. And even when you're a second-term governor trying to cater to your party's right wing, it's never wise to tick off your constituents. It sort of decreases your value as a presidential contender, don't you know.
Sanford's action shows the quandary the GOP is in. They hate the stimulus, but they can't produce any alternative. Intellectual atrophy has left the Republicans idealess. All they can do is shout "No!" While that might be part of a winning strategy, it's not a strategy itself.
So if Sanford really wants to take on the mantle of Republican leadership, let's see how he performs over the next year. Can he create a "second way," a new program for Republican governance? Or is he going to keep shouting "No" until his lungs give out?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
An Evangelical Collapse?
This piece by Michael Spencer just overflows with gloom. It’s titled “The Coming Evangelical Collapse"—and that’s the optimistic part! Spencer foresees an end to evangelical Protestantism as we know it. It’s coming fast, and it’s coming soon.
Evangelicals, Spencer writes, have made a deal with the devil—pun mostly intended. In this case, read “the devil” as conservatism. Evangelicals have traded in religion for politics. By focusing on issues like abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, they’ve lost sight of the real, transcendent nature of religion. The evangelical church isn’t a church anymore; it’s a political institution.
The megachurch movement is a symptom of the disease. Like giant vampires with jumbotron eyeballs, they’ve sucked evangelical Protestantism dry of any religious content. Sorry, that metaphor sucked. I apologize. Megachurch pastors like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen are more “life teachers” than shepherds of the faithful. They’d rather talk about global warming than the gospels.
So ends the modern evangelical movement. Evangelicals have failed to pass on their religious beliefs to the next generation because they don’t have beliefs anymore. Evangelical Christianity survived for decades thanks to the personal bonds it created between churchgoers and Christ. Now that connection has been replaced by petty politics. And who wants to spend Sunday morning getting a lecture about congressional policy?
Or at least, that’s what Spencer thinks. I disagree. And because I’m the one writing this blog post, I’m going to give myself the last word on the subject. Evangelical Protestantism isn’t going to collapse into nothingness overnight, or even in the next five years. It’s too big to fail. Evangelicals aren’t suddenly going to jump ship and become Catholics or Greek Orthodox or Wiccans or whatever. Their culture is too strong for that.
But I also think Spencer identifies one important future trend. He says:
Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.
Will the next five years see the secularization of religion? Oxymoronic, I know, but bear with me. I think religion, especially evangelical Protestantism, is going to take on a more worldly flavor. We already see it in ideas like the “Gospel of Wealth,” which proclaims that God wants you to prosper and grow rich.
Churches might—might—become more like social clubs than houses of worship. Pastors would cut back on the orthodoxy and instead offer self-help talks, political lectures, and financial advice. The actual religious content would be made more and more ecumenical so as to not offend anyone. Jesus would take a back pew in these new churches.
Of course, all this is only possible. I mean, if I can’t predict who’s going to win Best Actor, I’m certainly not qualified to predict the future of American religion. Who knows what the future holds?
Evangelicals, Spencer writes, have made a deal with the devil—pun mostly intended. In this case, read “the devil” as conservatism. Evangelicals have traded in religion for politics. By focusing on issues like abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, they’ve lost sight of the real, transcendent nature of religion. The evangelical church isn’t a church anymore; it’s a political institution.
The megachurch movement is a symptom of the disease. Like giant vampires with jumbotron eyeballs, they’ve sucked evangelical Protestantism dry of any religious content. Sorry, that metaphor sucked. I apologize. Megachurch pastors like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen are more “life teachers” than shepherds of the faithful. They’d rather talk about global warming than the gospels.
So ends the modern evangelical movement. Evangelicals have failed to pass on their religious beliefs to the next generation because they don’t have beliefs anymore. Evangelical Christianity survived for decades thanks to the personal bonds it created between churchgoers and Christ. Now that connection has been replaced by petty politics. And who wants to spend Sunday morning getting a lecture about congressional policy?
Or at least, that’s what Spencer thinks. I disagree. And because I’m the one writing this blog post, I’m going to give myself the last word on the subject. Evangelical Protestantism isn’t going to collapse into nothingness overnight, or even in the next five years. It’s too big to fail. Evangelicals aren’t suddenly going to jump ship and become Catholics or Greek Orthodox or Wiccans or whatever. Their culture is too strong for that.
But I also think Spencer identifies one important future trend. He says:
Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.
Will the next five years see the secularization of religion? Oxymoronic, I know, but bear with me. I think religion, especially evangelical Protestantism, is going to take on a more worldly flavor. We already see it in ideas like the “Gospel of Wealth,” which proclaims that God wants you to prosper and grow rich.
Churches might—might—become more like social clubs than houses of worship. Pastors would cut back on the orthodoxy and instead offer self-help talks, political lectures, and financial advice. The actual religious content would be made more and more ecumenical so as to not offend anyone. Jesus would take a back pew in these new churches.
Of course, all this is only possible. I mean, if I can’t predict who’s going to win Best Actor, I’m certainly not qualified to predict the future of American religion. Who knows what the future holds?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Go Go Joe
I'm forced to nod sadly in agreement with Patrick Ruffini's piece about the "Joe the Plumberization" of the GOP. I didn't think much of Joe when he first arrived on the scene, and, to be frank, I think even less of him now.
Joe's whole appeal was that he was completely apolitical. He didn't have any agenda or ideology; he was just a reg'lar guy, standing up for the interests of other reg'lar guys like himself. He was anti-politics personified.
Now, though, he's become the symbol of what Mark Halperin would undoubtedly call "freak show politics." He is a self-perpetuating phenomenon, the Paris Hilton of politics. He's not a working class hero anymore, but just another political pundit, one more talking head.
Oy. Is this the best conservatism can do? If it is, the movement's in deeper trouble than anyone realizes.
Joe's whole appeal was that he was completely apolitical. He didn't have any agenda or ideology; he was just a reg'lar guy, standing up for the interests of other reg'lar guys like himself. He was anti-politics personified.
Now, though, he's become the symbol of what Mark Halperin would undoubtedly call "freak show politics." He is a self-perpetuating phenomenon, the Paris Hilton of politics. He's not a working class hero anymore, but just another political pundit, one more talking head.
Oy. Is this the best conservatism can do? If it is, the movement's in deeper trouble than anyone realizes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)