Tony Snow has died, all too young at 53. I stopped having cable TV before his run as Press Secretary, but I always enjoyed his affable presence on Fox News in the relatively early years before fembottery and crass sensationalism became the big moneymakers there. Fox, as people sometimes forget, became big chiefly because its main journalists made CNN look like the dry, godawful bore that it was. Snow was, by my lights, a big part of the refresher. He'll be missed.
Well, I now see that a certain meme has developed:
After reading over the coverage of Jesse Helms' passing on a prominent conservative blog, it seems apt to quote Sean Connery in Goldfinger, and say that it is "shocking, positively shocking" that the conservative movement has trouble winning over black voters. -- Isaac Chotiner
Like Matt, I'm a bit surprised to see conservatives heaping praise on Jesse Helms. Helms was an awful bigot with a secondary interest in destroying international institutions and increasing tobacco subsidies. -- Ezra Klein
Three guesses who're the "conservatives" / "prominent conservative blog" in question. I met Jesse Helms once, in the same ten minutes that I met Strom Thurmond and Ted Kennedy -- imperfect men all. I'm not after a moral equivalence game here (e.g. manslaughter v. bigotry), but it doesn't take much -- I don't think -- to concede that lots of political men in America have been quite right about the wickedness of the abuse of political power and simultaneously quite deaf to the wickedness of the abuse of race power. Conservatives lose nothing by admitting that Jesse Helms was the product of a culture that merited much respect but for the one aspect that has come to define it.
There have been a goodly number of bigots, racists, and tolerators of slavery and segregation, over the years, whose understanding of political liberty has been sound or compelling. To admit as much is no more than to extend an insight of the same character about our Founders, whose race-related shortcomings taint, but do not diminish, the quality of their genius. The extension only carries into less impressive territory, excusing nothing, but acknowledging wisdom and knowledge where it is found. That bad or defective people can be right about things is a hard truth but an important one nonetheless. The saddest story of the South, from such a perspective, centers on the great decay in the quality of Southern political intellects after the founding Virginia generation. Calhoun (not a secessionist!) was a lonely light in a dim country. Alexander Stephens was the last statesman of the Old South of any real quality.
It's not silly to imagine that a South blessed with statesman of Founder-like stock would have carried at least a portion of the sub-Mason-Dixonite realm out of slave politics and into more perfect union and more perfect statehood. But then again the Upper South was entirely content to remain in the Union until the Union resolved to invade the Cotton Kingdom. That's a story for another day, but the bottom line here is that conservatives really must be clear that no single website should be taken as the Once and Final Official Mouthpiece -- especially on a question like posthumous praise for Jesse Helms. I can give Helms all the praise he merits while frowning duly upon his grave inadequacies over the years -- and neither diminish my standing nor that of conservatism. Indeed I rather suspect I'm elevating both.
MORE...Ross concurs -- even more forcefully pushing away from defending Helms in favor of defending good things Helms also defended: which now on my read sounds even righter.
PS the blockquotes in this post are not indented because Typepad has some mindblowingly serious and annoying problems afoot.
Apropos of Shawn's remarks below:
Lord, is Sam Anderson's recent New York magazine spread on Barack Obama's ability to talk real pretty-like a piece of work!
Like America itself, [Obama is] addicted to origin myths. He's built his political success on the back of compulsive autobiography, the brilliant telling and retelling, and then retelling some more, of his divinely unorthodox life story: the great sweeping legend of Obamerica, the fusion of man and nation, whose manifest destiny extends all the way to the White House.
Is America really "addicted" to "origin myths"? Or is it thrilled by its own myth, and therefore by anyone whose personal story recapitulates it? It seems less like a case of Obamerica than Amerobama. This might sound like hair-splitting, but it's important to be clear on how the specific American mythos is what captures the American imagination, rather than any old Jungian archetype that comes along. We are only grab-baggers when it comes to practical, present-day experience. Sadly, however, therapeutic culture has pushed us exactly into Jung's open arms. To the extent that Obama embodies a shifting, therapeutic assemblage of archetypical fantasies, he's departing from the classic American script -- and the authoritative tradition of the classic American experience.
The rumor mill twirls. As will no doubt haunt me for ages, I endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination, and, doubling down, re-endorsed him for the vice presidential nomination. I am one of the few people who seems to like Romney personally, although his unappealing personal tics are plain enough, but the deal-sealer for my endorsements has always been the nature and quality of the competition.
Once again, I cast about for sound alternatives to Romney and simply find none. Putting Jindal on the ticket may be an awesome idea for McCain, but I am nowhere near persuaded that it is a good idea for Jindal himself or the party, which needs to stockpile the dry powder of real political and policy talents not ruined by a soak in the Bush bath. At this point in time, Jindal is far more a celebrity than a leader. (Not his fault; doesn't matter.)
Pawlenty might be a cool choice, if only as a catalyst to the idea of handing off the GOP to its young intellectual turks. But what, of substance (i.e. money, acumen, base mobilization), does Pawlenty -- or anyone else -- bring McCain that Romney can't?
Bonus thought: some people -- I forgot who or where, but they're out there -- have speculated that the GOP will hit rock bottom when Romney loses in 2012 to a second-term-destined President Obama. If Romney joins the ticket now, and that ticket loses, will that horrible future be more or less likely?
(Thru Peter Lawler.)
MORE...Andrew groans. But would Mitt push independents toward McCain? Bigoted thought experiment: which is worse -- a half-black president or an all-Mormon vice?
The latest dustup began on CBS' "Face the Nation." Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO under Bill Clinton, said McCain's military service was not the same as executive experience.
"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," Clark said "It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.
"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."
Clark has said as much before, but drew little notice. CBS moderator Bob Schieffer cited Clark's earlier remarks and noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences either nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied. -- AP
Well, this time around these kind of remarks are bound to draw notice. The main problem here is that overrated military guys with nothing to show for their laughable 'political' careers really should keep their mouths shut when it comes to John McCain's credentials. Nobody has ever argued that a sitting Senator is underqualified for the Presidency. Of course, Clark is right that "riding" in a fighter plane and "getting" shot down are not qualifications to be president. But that's beside the point. McCain's personal history of sacrifice does not make him a foreign-policy expert. 'Toughness' is not a substitute for statesmanship.
Only if McCain thinks his history of sacrifice qualifies him to make lots of decisions about situations and problems in which he has zero practical experience of any kind is he less than qualified to be president. But even then, such a judgment would extend from the candidate's faulty logic. Lots of presidents have made decisions about things with which they had no direct practical experience. That's actually good: presidents are not supposed to be experts.
Clark's remarks hardly rise to the level of shame or outrage. So I am left agreeing with Bob Dole's take on the little kerfluffle:
"Beyond comprehension...further erosion of our nation's political discourse," said former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., in a written statement.
If Clark or anyone else thinks that John McCain, as a matter of character, is incapable of making prudent judgments, I invite them to make that relevant allegation. But to allege that he is incapable in that way as a matter of experience is to invite a retaliatory barrage of cheap shots against Obama. Just what the country needs, isn't it?
MORE...Phil Klein's got fallout.
Peter Lawler must be trying to kill me with this tease:
The betting by some today is that Obama will pick Biden--which would be seen as a solid choice of an experienced man by a candidate confident of victory.
Back when I was criticizing every Democrat but Obama and Lieberman for not having a consistent Iraq policy, I should have given Biden the props he deserves; sure, it's creepy to invade a country only to dismantle it (and blame the breakup on its citizens bad behavior!), but Biden has been as consistent and clear as anyone on the roots of the problems in Iraq that stand in the way of that pot of gold known as A Political Solution.
Whereas Bobby Jindal for Veep is certainly the right choice for McCain while definitely being the wrong choice for Bobby Jindal, Biden is a guy who would love being Vice and would do a fine job of it. Plus he studiously avoided offending Hillary Clinton, which will appease the broken-hearted masses. Bottom line, someone with that hairdo deserves a place at the top of the US Government, and if this is going to be the Dem's year then I can't think of anyone I'd rather see at #2.
Jonah G suggests that McCain pick Sam Nunn for his VP nominee. David Brooks, among others, made that suggestion to Obama. They could both pick him, I guess, adding needed stability to our political system.Now that's a nightmare ticket. Though Daniel is surely talking sense when he argues that Webb shows everyone exactly why and how Obama isn't 'electable', I'm not sure that point does as much work as Daniel may be claiming. Voters simply may not care or be thinking that hard. Media-influenced public opinion always has its impact, but certainly Tom Daschle, for instance, would be a far worse pick than Webb, judging simply by standing the two up side by side. That said, I think Daniel's valid criticisms of Webb don't apply at all to John Edwards; but then again I've always thought that if Edwards were the Democratic nominee for President in 2004, Bush would have lost. It's possible that Edwards thinks this too. I can't think of a better pick for Obama...but then again I still haven't been sold on an Romney alternative for McCain.
The former president added that his wife had not been given the respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate. "She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence,” he said. “And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.” -- CNN.comA hell of a thing to say for a man who never won the majority of the popular vote.
Ezra asks a sort of unnerving question: why are Republicans -- really -- so hot on Bobby Jindal? Is it because he is the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan? Because he is highly competent with policy figures and from a cool, new ethnic group with plausibly conservative leanings? Or is it really because he's attained the great accomplishment of not being a total tool from an obsolete and pathetic era? I certainly have nothing against Jindal, and he seems like the sort of guy whose career will develop well and naturally rather fast. But stacked up against the GOP's current crop of would-be leaders, he looks like the Ubermensch, even though he's really about as tested and experienced as...well...
Is Bobby Jindal the right's Barack Obama? If he is, this should be fairly strong evidence that the ruling classes of both parties have more or less exhausted themselves.
I am a weak Republican. I'm a strong conservative, at least I like to think so. Maybe that makes me less beholden to the idea that every Republican victory is a conservative one as well, or that every Democratic success is automatically a conservative defeat. I get all of this email from people screaming that I'm some sort of RINO because of a column where I floated a strategic idea for how the Republican could win and the conservative movement might live to fight another day. But the idea that the fate of conservatism and the fate of the Republican Party are not merely intertwined but synonymous is what led us to the rhetorical abomination of compassionate conservatism and nurtured the crapulence of the congressional GOP lo these last 10 years. I would rather a McCain administration with a Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman as #2 that felt obliged to appease conservatives with action than a McCain-Sanford administration where the McCain people felt they'd already done enough for the Right by putting their man on the ticket.Jonah is dead right that conflating Republican'ism' and conservat'ism' has done much doom for both the GOP and real conservatism over the past decade. And he is right that Bush bears mucho mucho blame for this. But doesn't he understand that Liebermanism and Gersonism are nearly identitical? Or that Harry Truman was not a conservative? How has this confusion developed? Disambiguating Republicanism and conservatism means recognizing how 'movement conservatism' has betrayed conservatism, and that in turn means disambiguating patriotism and conservatism. I love patriotism. I love conservatism. But one does a reciprocal disservice to each by declaring Joe Lieberman good for conservatism because he is a pro-war liberal. Ironically, putting Lieberman on the ticket would be far, far better for Republicanism than conservatism, because Lieberman is not just a pro-war liberal but a pro-war Rockefeller Republican. If this is representative of the depths of our confusion, we should let McCain draw the name of his veep out of a hat, because neither Joe Lieberman, my pet rock, nor Indiana Jones himself will be able to save either a party or an intellectual movement this deep in befuddlement.
Recent Comments