Updated: The Mooch: More of a Front-Stabber

Update: Well.  Wish this had happened before I had the urge to put these thoughts to virtual paper.  And he was off to such a nice start. Sheesh.  --ed.


I'm not under the illusion that Anthony Scaramucci is anything but a conventional thinker on most issues, but so far I really enjoy him in his new White House Communications Director role. He's funny, and he seems candid in that when he doesn't want to answer a question he'll just tell you that and not stonewall.

More importantly, he seems to bring to the job a couple of things the President desperately needs: a guy who understands him and and a guy who will defend him, wholeheartedly, and not with the sense of doing so against better judgment or perhaps holding his nose.

Without defending every tweet President Trump has ever sent, his tweeting doesn't trouble me. It's his way of going over the media's head, which needs to be done, and it's his way of taking their smug superiority down a peg, which equally needs to be done when we have a press that thinks it, and not the sovereign people, rules. ("When you mock the student government president, you undo him," as the late Tony Snow said.)

What I criticize the President for, communications-wise, is that, like President Bush, he hasn't bothered much to defend himself (apart from tweets) --hasn't even seemed to try to coordinate messaging with his own team; and, like President Obama, he seems to have an oversized sense of the power of his own rhetoric -- as if saying stuff makes it so. (To wit, yesterday's tweet about banning trans-gender people from the military. Wake me when you find an actual policy and not just a tweet.)

Understanding the President.  In one of his first tv appearances in his new role, responding to Chris Wallace's question about his past criticism of Trump, I loved "the Mooch's" answer both because it was funny and because I think it was an effective translation of Trump for people who find him too abrasive. Watch for two minutes beginning at about 13:20 to 16, including the part about how the President teases him all the time about his past criticism. It's amusing, but it's also revealing of the difference between political insiders and the outsider who currently holds the presidency.

To make the point more succinctly, this morning we read this:

“What I don’t like about Washington is people do not let you know how they feel,” he said. “They’re very nice to your face and then they take a shiv or a machete and they stab it in your back. I don’t like it. I’m a Wall Street guy, and I’m more of a front-stabbing person, and I’d rather tell people directly how I feel about them than this sort of nonsense.”

More of a front-stabber. I can hear him saying it and find it hilarious. I also think it's a brilliant assessment of the difference between Trump and official Washington. 

Getting back to the tweets that make us all roll our eyes about what a goob this guy is. I don't think it's seemly for a President, or anyone, to be coarse. I cringe at "bleeding from her facelift," and wish he'd chosen a more gentlemanly way to mock in that instance. But the smug elites do have to be mocked to break the power of political correctness and show that they can be stood up to.  And if you ask me which is worse: to be called ugly or fat or stupid or to be called a bigot, a warrior against women, and a killer of the elderly and the sick (people will die!), I find Trump's style of insult more honest, and more in the spirit of a fair fight than the vicious, character-maligning rhetoric of the Left I have endured all my life and has only gotten more and more shrill.  The former just tells you the guy is annoyed with you at the moment; the latter is an effort to ruin you utterly, driving you from polite society. Which is more corrosive of civic life? 

(It does, however, remind me of this:)

Two Points in Trump's Favor

I've been joking on Twitter that maybe Trump is a genius after all, because I don't know who else could have gotten Bill Clinton to wax eloquent for an hour about how sexy his wife is and how important the institution of marriage is; could have gotten the President to give shout-outs to Ted Cruz, coal miners, and the forgotten factory worker; and could have gotten the party as a whole --embodied by Booker, Michele, Biden & Obama-- to be full-throatedly patriotic and demand that no one run the country down.

As Pat Buchanan once said, this week has been the greatest show of cross-dressing I've ever seen. Tho' I guess we have to say the Democratic Party has identified as patriotic this week.

More seriously, in fairness to Trump, I want to throw two things out for consideration.

First, his press conference, the one where he allegedly called for Russia to hack us.  He didn't. What he did do was set a trap for the Hillary people to admit that her lost emails contain classified information -- and they utterly fell for it, in an unforced error.

More importantly, just watch it (Curtsy: Ann Althouse). Not saying I agree with every word of it, but I think I could feel comfortable if this version of Donald Trump showed up more often.  Not going to say more...just watch and see what you think.




 Secondly,  here's a pretty robust defense of Trump against the charge that he mocked the handicapped. That accusation has never sat well with me, because I watched Trump defend himself contemporaneously, and I judged him to be sincere, though because I don't trust him, I wasn't sure.  Read this.  The piece probably makes too much of the fact that the reporter in question does not have cerebral palsy and isn't handicapped in the way Trump gesticulated.  What I find persuasive is the 2nd video at the link, where he mocks Ted Cruz with the exact same gesture. It's Trump's way of indicating falling apart or discombobulation, and seeing that cinched for me what I already believed -- that in this one instance, Trump has been maligned, and didn't do the horrible thing we all readily believed of him.

I'm not a convert. I'm not going to pretend Trump is Reagan. But fair is fair.

Trump is Zelig

Since Trump looks likely (I think there's still a chance for Rubio -- see the Weekly Standard take on the rally I missed out on in the previous post), I have been thinking hard about him. First, to see if I can in conscience vote for him if he's the nominee and second, because a handful of people whose political judgments I deeply respect support him over all the other nominees and I've been trying to be open-minded and see what they are seeing that I am not.

I "get" the voter rage angle. Yesterday during a conversation about politics I completely lost my cool in front of Eldest Weed (not at him) in a way that surprised me. It was a moment of self-awareness where for the first time I realized  I am one of those profoundly angry voters. I am not only deeply saddened, but enraged, that the liberty of a great nation has been utterly squandered for decades, and with rapid intensity in the past 10 years, thanks to the corruption of crony capitalism and our utter failure for generations to teach people what freedom is, such that we the people have willingly traded our inheritance for bright baubles and empty promises.

I learned from the Romney defeat that no one in the GOP is speaking the language of the working class, which feels itself increasingly threatened by an economy simultaneously stagnant and in rapid transition to something "else"; by a weakened currency that means wages can't keep pace with purchasing power; and by the feeling of malaise and weakness from losing wars, racial tensions and crazy policies that Trump rightly calls "losing" and "making bad deals." I understand the Trump phenomenon to be at bottom about jobs and patriotism (I  take worries about immigration to be overblown, both because the crisis has peaked and because hostility to aliens is a proxy for fearing for your own job -- and also because voters in SC said it was low priority).  Obama hasn't brought any jobs. The GOP Congress, after a lot of big talk, hasn't defeated the job-killing Obamacare. So why not give the successful businessman who promises incessantly he'll bring all the jobs back and put competent managers in charge of the government a shot? If he gives the middle finger to all the crony capitalists and media people who look down their noses at Middle America, so much the better. 

To those who are scandalized that Trump is pulling evangelical voters -- and telling those people they aren't Christian-- I would point out that Pastor Jeffers, one of Trump's supporters, makes a good case when he says that after Obergefell, evangelicals gave up on the idea that there would ever be godly leadership, and decided to go for a guy who would at least make rational decisions in the country's interests and leave discipleship to the Church.  So I absolve the evangelicals of being merely money-grubbing or hypocritical in their choice. They are perhaps learning to think politically rather than sentimentally; more likely, they're just being pragmatic. 

The argument that disturbs me enough that I've been trying to wrestle with it is the idea that Trump is a "Declaration candidate." This is the argument that while Trump is vulgar and a disrupter, what he represents is the people at long last manfully asserting their own agency as against the crony elites -- and therefore for all his coarseness, will be a purifying force for the body politic.  Yes, he talks like a demagogue, but in office in all likelihood, because he wants to succeed, he will take advice and put competent people in place and he might just be the one man who could actually rein in the size of government. (When you think about it, this was the Romney argument: "I like to fire people." Except Romney was hurt by the idea that he was mean; Trump's whole persona is "mean," so you can't attack him with it.) 

Having read sensible people taking this view, I took to listening to Trump speeches and campaign appearances to see if they were right. That's where I picked up the patriotism note, which I hadn't previously noticed. 

Still, I am sorry, they are wrong.

1. His promise to put "the right" people in charge is a Progressive promise, not a revolutionary one. He is running as a strongman & champion -- a Chavez (who also rose to power by being coarse and shocking the elites)-- or perhaps just an Obama. He doesn't sound like a person who will roll back the Administrative state and return us to a republic of self-government and personal and community agency. 

2. Statesmanship often involves tacking with the winds in order to keep the ship on course. In desperate times, prudence may require fighting for a single foundational principle, even at the temporary cost of other ideals one holds dear. Lincoln sacrificed much for the sake of holding the Union together because he understood that if the Union fell apart, not a single other good of the fledgling republic would remain. Does Trump have such a North Star to navigate by?  There is nothing whatsoever to suggest so.  Lincoln had a long track record of reflection on the meaning of the Declaration and the rule of law by the time he ran for President. Reagan had a track record starting from "A time for choosing." Trump's record is one of carefully adopting the popular -- the "winning"-- opinion of the moment. His opponents look at his past support for abortion, single-payer health care and the Clintons and see a life-long Democrat masquerading as a Conservative. I see a guy who adopts the views of whoever he happens to be hanging out with today.

3. Along these lines, in spite of his strong man image, I find Trump to be an extraordinarily weak man. Remember how he melted before Carly Fiorina's withering response to his having insulted her looks? He fell all over himself in that early debate to walk his comment back just because she stood up to him and he saw that his attack wasn't winning. 

His ability to lie boldly and often is well-known. But what strikes me in interviews is not his lies, but how often he changes his mind right on camera in the face of an interviewer who presses a point. The only point he ever sticks to is that he didn't say whatever it is you disapprove of.  On all other matters he capitulates easily --how often at debates he's changed his mind right in front of us as he rambled through a point!  He may revel in the dislike of the elites,  as populists do -- and that dislike may propel him to personal popularity-- but those elites are masters at manipulating public opinion on specific issues, and Trump is a slave to polls.  Where Reagan molded opinion to his will, changing the polls, Trump will change his opinion to whatever way the wind blows on any given topic.

4. Are you ready for Chief of Staff or other influential operative Roger Stone? Roger Stone? Is there a more corrupt figure in American life apart from the Clintons, and we're to turn the nation over to a man who chooses Roger Stone as his pal and political advisor? To support Trump is to throw away forever the argument that character counts and that self-dominion and self-restraint and virtue are necessary for the regime of freedom. You don't get to support Trump and be angry with Hillary for making good deals for herself and being a shameless liar all her life. 

5. This evening on a long drive home from a going-away party, I couldn't find anything good on the radio and so settled for a C-SPAN recording of Trump's appearance today in Huntsville, AL.  Mostly the same old tedious stuff about how great his polls are and winning, winning, blah, blah. But two things stood out. 

First: for the umpteenth time Trump promised he will bring back jobs by saying that as President he will personally call the CEOs of companies that try to move to Mexico or elsewhere and threaten them with a 35% tariff on their specific brand and the next day they will call him and say they're actually going to stay stateside.  

At one time I would have said this is no different in principle than other GOP candidates promising to lower taxes (which no President can do). But those candidates are using shorthand to describe the agenda they will set with the Congress. Trump, I'm convinced, literally doesn't know the president can't levy a tariff at all, much less on a specific company. I say this because he clearly has heard the criticism that the President has no power to impose a tariff, because he addressed it with the audience. In a stage whisper he declared (paraphrasing), "They say this wouldn't be presidential, so maybe I will make the call in secret." Then he goes on to describe in detail how the call will go and who will say what to whom. It's not a joke or hyperbole or agenda-setting. It's the actual view of the same guy who told us the other night that his sister the judge "signed a bill" that judge Alito also signed.  It's also a ridiculous claim, and a disturbing one, considering what it implies about his concept of executive power. A man who doesn't know how the government operates --and hasn't bothered to learn in this long campaign-- is going to be eaten up by the system, not make himself master of it. 

Secondly: I was amazed to hear Trump discuss the problem of China manufacturing islands in order to control the sea lanes in the South China Sea, and then denounce the Obama administration for allowing our military to decay such that we have aging equipment and aren't able to defend ourselves against Russia, China & Iran.  You know who has been talking about those two issues since the beginning of his campaign? Marco Rubio -- and he's the only one who has. Trump stole the talking points and his entire understanding of those issues from Rubio.  So the Strumpets can say they despise Rubio, but Rubio is actually setting their man's agenda on any question that isn't about saving jobs by personally threatening CEOs.  Rubio's the idea man in this election cycle. Candidates ought to learn from each other how to make good arguments. But great men do not just wholesale adopt whatever ideas they happen to hear from their opponents in debate.  

Trump is not some Prince Hal who is going to surprise us all by evolving into a statesman.  He is a Zelig, who will adopt the policy positions of whomever he ends up standing next to, as at this link, in which it is revealed that when talking to the NYT, his vaunted "wall" suddenly disappears and becomes an "opening bid." He is not strong; he is enormously weak.

*This essay has been tinkered with since I originally published it. Took nothing out, but added a bit and re-arranged. Intend to add some links to it later. 

If You Had the Chance to Preach A Homily to the World, What Would You Say?

Pretty much this, I would think. In addition to being true, and an example of great strength and grace (the man is preaching the funeral of a father to whom he was close), this is a rhetorical marvel.

Gilmore's Gone

Dang, Jim Gilmore dropped out? I was actually supporting him because he's the only candidate in either party who hasn't been Spamming me multiple times a day asking for just $2 or just $5 to fix the world.

About which (candidate spam, not Jim Gilmore), Jonah Goldberg has something worthwhile to say. (It's about more than spam, don't worry).

Well, That Was Dispiriting

I couldn't watch Saturday night's GOP debate live. Before catching up to it on video, I was of course privy to the common opinion that Marco Rubio shot himself in the foot by repeating himself four times in the wake of Chris Christie's withering accusation that Rubio has no achievements to point to and just repeats his canned lines.

This seems to have been the opinion not only of the majority in media, but of those of my own household. Contemporaneous text from Eldest Weed:

Is Rubio a buffoon? What is he doing? This is absolutely insane.

Prepared by this talk for cringing on Rubio's behalf, the exchange didn't seem that damaging to me. (Watch it here, roughly minutes 10-15). I'm not sure why Rubio coming back repeatedly to his point that the problem with Obama is not that he was inexperienced but that his agenda was poisonous is somehow more robotic and canned than Christie's coming back repeatedly to his point that a governor is much better suited than a senator to hold executive office. (How many times did Christie say that Saturday night? How many times has he done it in all the debates combined?) No one has more canned lines than Christie. Here are 5: 

• I was a federal prosecutor during 9/11. 
• I was scared for my wife during 9/11
• I am a governor, a job where you actually do stuff
• (interrupting substantive debate that defines difference between candidates, turning to camera to say:) "See, we need a Washington to English dictionary, the American people don't care about this. 
• The American people are terrified, cringing in the corner, in case there's another terrorist attack

I grant that Rubio's response was not stellar.  As an argument, Christie's contention that an executive role better prepares you for the higher executive role of President than does the deliberative role of senator is strong, and one I have often made here. In the abstract, I would always choose a governor over a senator if each were equally conservative and electable.  But it looked to me as if Rubio, though occupying the weaker ground, basically held his own, particularly since Christie, not satisfied with laying a good clean punch, went pissy and then got a bit of his own back.  

Rubio is already running for the general election, and it's my judgment that he did well just keeping a smile on his face while Christie indulged his inner New Jersey -- and later in the debate, staying out of the weeds of his gang of 8 participation, carefully navigating away from that topic (where he is defensible, but the defense is too complicated for sound bites).  Not his best night, but I doubt it does him much long term damage -- especially since except for those 5 minutes, he won the rest of the debate in my mind. Great answer on abortion; clearly has a better command of what's happening in the middle east than the others; much clearer handle on the state of the armed forces and the prosecution of terror; clear articulation of the principles of limited government. 

I agree with the conventional wisdom that Ted Cruz had a good night (seemed a little more human and less condescending than usual somehow, in addition to having some effective and attractive answers on several questions) and Jeb Bush showed some life. But on the whole I found the Saturday debate dispiriting, and it lowered the entire field in my esteem. 

1) Sometimes I have thought I could get behind Christie, but this is the second debate in a row where he has used enemy language to tarnish pro-lifers unfairly (he likes to say he's pro-life even after people are born -- the precise malicious taunt used by Planned Parenthood types against pro-life activists. I go white hot with rage when I hear anyone level it, because pro-lifers are the ones who adopt the kids (including minorities and those w/ special needs), run the pregnancy centers and homes for single mothers, etc., etc. As a former pro-life lobbyist I know personally all the heads of the pro-life groups, and they all walk the walk. They all do an enormous amount of charitable giving, hosting single moms in their own homes, fostering and adopting special needs kids.... ALL of them do that; it comes with the conviction. There is no more terrible calumny than the one that pro-lifers don't care about born children -- and to hear it from someone who styles himself pro-life is just lemon in a cut. It's betrayal.  I feel I hate Christie when he talks that way, and I guarantee you everyone else actually engaged in the issue does too).  

And, in this debate he defined a child conceived in rape as a "predator" against the mother.   Rubio did a vastly superior job (besides taking my own position) of discussing competing rights without turning babies into Alien. Sheesh.  That offensive line of argument makes Chris Christie dead to me.

But on top of that, if he's such a wonderful leader who can get things done, someone who can take the tough decisions, then why doesn't he throw some of his punches at Donald Trump, who is damaging the conservative movement, instead of confining himself to Rubio? He's too afraid to take it to Trump, so I don't want to hear anything about toughness and courage. 

2) Marco Rubio did damage himself with me Saturday night, as did the entire field, by having not one word to say against women in combat, and even supporting selective service registration for women.  Oh. My. God.  Three of the candidates on stage explicitly supported women in combat and selective service, and the others -- not even Cruz, not even Carson-- felt no need to jump in. 

So a) apparently not a single GOP candidate understands the difference between opening combat positions to those (few) women who desire them and can qualify for them and compelling all young women via the draft ?!? 

One of them (I no longer recall who -- Bush?) said something about not politicizing the military, but none of them could extrapolate from that and make the point that opening combat roles to women IS experimenting with the military? No one could take it to Obama and point out the administration is doing this against the advice of the military experts and that in a dangerous time, while our military is catastrophically weakened, we're now forcing the military to turn its attention to affirmative action-ing women into combat? 

And that's just the easy, obvious argument. The larger point is that it's suicide for a nation to send its young women to war. All kinds of cultural upheaval was the result of WWII and a generation of men never returning home. Nothing good in the culture came from the loss of that generation of men ("war is always a defeat for humanity" as St. JP II said), but at least old men can sire children. Old women cannot bear them, and therefore only a culture of death (or a nation fundamentally unserious about war and peace) can entertain sending its young women off to war. (Bush, as I recall, said he was for selective service for women because the draft isn't coming back. Is he sure? And there's principle for you.).  All my heart for this election and for any of those men drained out of me in those moments. 

After the fact, Ted Cruz has discovered that drafting women into combat is nuts. But Mr. Stand on Principle, Never Be Politically Correct didn't find that very important to say to a national audience, so I'm not impressed. 

I suppose I will rally in a day or two. Maybe if I contemplate a Sanders presidency.

Update: NR w/ more on why women in combat is stupid policy, and selective service super-stupid.  

Off the Fence Before Iowa

Tomorrow night's Iowa caucus will give us our first true information about the GOP primaries. Donald Trump's been sucking up all the oxygen with a brilliant media campaign. The guy knows television and branding.

I can't believe --which is to say I absolutely can, but shake my head-- his pulling out of the most recent GOP tactic worked to get everyone talking about him for 72 hours. Goodness. He pulled that threaten-to-pull-out stunt already with the first two debates. If FOX news were a serious news organization and not a ratings gimmick, it would have responded with a simple, "We will have a podium ready for Mr. Trump and hope he'll come" and left it at that. But of course, it was to their advantage to play along and amplify his game, so they taunted him with a snotty news release instead. Fun reality tv: but unserious, and unfair to the other candidates.

I'll give Trump something else, an understanding to which I've been late in coming because I've been so put off by his personal vulgarity and long history of supporting Lefty causes (though he's probably not done so out of ideological commitment, but merely to grease the skids for business dealings -- something about which he's unapologetic). I watched his "speech" (really his random commentary) at Liberty University and realized that deep down, the man is motivated by a certain patriotism. His understanding of the Declaration, the Constitution, the rule of law, statesmanship, and the value of limited government is no better than the average American's in our age of college-teaches-you-nothing. But he at least loves his country in his limited way, and that plus the promise of jobs in an economy that's closing out a full decade of disastrous economic policy ON TOP of an economic revolution akin to the industrial revolution that not one single politician understands, much less addresses, is Trump's appeal.  People aren't fools and they aren't fooled by him. They're not loving his crassness; they're tolerating it in order to get some of these "wins" he promises.

He's been riding high in the polls, but the interesting question will be if those polls translate into actual voters in the caucuses. Reporters traveling with the various campaigns have said for months that Cruz has an excellent get-out-the-vote campaign and has been doing the hard work of retail politics, visiting every polling site.  Trump, by contrast, is said to have been relying on big rallies and events that are captured on camera. His poll numbers are good, but they're good with people who haven't been previously active in caucuses. So will they actually show up? If so, maybe we're a reality tv nation now, and retail politics means less than it once did. Or maybe not.

Meanwhile, I'm crossing my fingers for Marcomentum. Marco Rubio is also said to have a don't-count-him-out ground game in Iowa, and everyone's noticing that Ted Cruz' attack ads have suddenly gone viciously against Rubio rather than Trump, which suggests a Rubio surge.

I've decided I really whole-heartedly like Rubio. As I've mentioned previously, I see him as a more effective legislator than Ted Cruz --who, for all his vaunted constitutionalism, seems not to understand the body to which he was elected and how it works, and has spent his time helping to weaken it rather than shore it up against executive encroachment.  Polling continually shows that of the GOP candidates, only Rubio consistently beats Hillary and Bernie, and Cruz, whatever his merits, I think is too angry and too condescending a figure to appeal to the electorate at large. Trump TALKS angry and say horrible insulting things, but somehow he doesn't actually seem all that angry or condescending. Whereas with Cruz, something in his face just makes you want to slug him for being so smug -- even when you agree with him.

People who have worked with Rubio always remark on his sincerity, his transparency, his hard work in understanding issues, and that is what comes across to me when I hear him in interviews. I am always impressed with his detailed knowledge on defense issues in particular, but also on economic policy. He's been a champion of religious liberty and persecuted Christians (don't take my word for it, take a look at what Michael Cromartie has to say), and I love him for this:



It's not just that he cut a pro-life ad. That's what you do when you're running in Iowa and courting evangelical voters. It's that he didn't use the throw-them-some-red-meat boilerplate that insincere GOP politicians use: where they say they're pro-life and that they think Roe v. Wade should be overturned and would support a constitutional amendment to defend life.  That's what politicians say when they either know nothing about the issue or intend to do nothing whatsoever about it. The fact that Rubio tells you specific measures he'll support -- how he will advance the cause-- tells you he's given it some thought, understands the state of play, and actually means it.

Here's another Rubio ad I like. I'm not sure I fully get it, actually -- there seems to be an in-joke that I don't know about.  But it shows his sunny personality, and I'll tell you what's smartest about it: it shows his wrinkles, so he doesn't seem so young. His youthful good looks, along with his rushed, earnest delivery (even though he's capable of great eloquence), are weaknesses. They make him seem too young. But any time I hear him in an interview where there's time for an actual answer as opposed to a sound bite, I am impressed.

Obama's Bloodless Presser

"Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"

Watch the President's unbelievable press conference today. 

Or if you can't bear it, listen to Bill Hemmer's summary. 

Or just watch minutes 25-27.  We're all gonna die and the President of the United States isn't going to lift a finger to stop it. 

Paging the GOP

This video is supposed to be an indictment of the racism of Donald Trump & Republicans. But listen to what he says. He's tired of his taxes going to take care of the shiftless and the criminal! If you can't make a Republican voter out of this guy, you deserve to lose.

Fiorina the Green

In violation of my own policy to pay no attention to presidential politics until after Labor Day at least, I watched this snippet of Carly Fiorina. I really like her style. In my head I'd dismissed her until, unable to sleep one night, I caught her at that Iowa venue a few months ago, which was re-playing on C-SPAN in the middle of the night. I was really impressed -- especially with how knowledgeable she sounded not only on economic issues, but foreign policy, which I did not expect. See what you think of this -- and ignore the stupid clip title. It's not a particularly hostile interview and there is no red meat of the sort the headline promises, so you will be disappointed if that's what you're looking for. I hope she makes the "first tier" of debates. She will sharpen the others in a way the GOP needs.


  

Mansfield On Why You Should Read the Whole Speech

Love this piece by Harvey Mansfield in this morning's WSJ: Give Michelle Obama A Break. If you read a speech through instead of relying on a sound bite clipped out of context, you might be surprised at what you find.

Yes, it's true that the First Lady went through a litany of past and present slights against black citizens. But if you read her speech, she really did not do it in the spirit of "hate whitey," nor did she claim that most whites are racists. She was simply frank with the kids that occasionally they'll have it harder or feel slighted because of their race -- and that is no excuse for anything. 

She's a progressive liberal, so of course not everything she says resonates with me, but its overall message is positive and wholesome: 

Our history provides us with a better story, a better blueprint for how we can win.  It teaches us that when we pull ourselves out of those lowest emotional depths, and we channel our frustrations into studying and organizing and banding together -- then we can build ourselves and our communities up.  We can take on those deep-rooted problems, and together -- together -- we can overcome anything that stands in our way.And the first thing we have to do is vote.  (Applause.)    Hey, no, not just once in a while.  Not just when my husband or somebody you like is on the ballot.  But in every election at every level, all of the time.  (Applause.)  Because here is the truth -- if you want to have a say in your community, if you truly want the power to control your own destiny, then you’ve got to be involved.  You got to be at the table.  You’ve got to vote, vote, vote, vote.  That’s it; that's the way we move forward. That’s how we make progress for ourselves and for our country.   That’s what’s always happened here at Tuskegee.  Think about those students who made bricks with their bare hands.  They did it so that others could follow them and learn on this campus, too.  Think about that brilliant scientist who made his lab from a trash pile.  He did it because he ultimately wanted to help sharecroppers feed their families.  Those Airmen who rose above brutal discrimination -- they did it so the whole world could see just how high black folks could soar.  That’s the spirit we’ve got to summon to take on the challenges we face today.And you don’t have to be President of the United States to start addressing things like poverty, and education, and lack of opportunity.  Graduates, today -- today, you can mentor a young person and make sure he or she takes the right path.  Today, you can volunteer at an after-school program or food pantry.  Today, you can help your younger cousin fill out her college financial aid form so that she could be sitting in those chairs one day.  (Applause.)  But just like all those folks who came before us, you’ve got to do something to lay the groundwork for future generations.That pilot I mentioned earlier -- Charles DeBow -- he didn’t rest on his laurels after making history.  Instead, after he left the Army, he finished his education.  He became a high school English teacher and a college lecturer.  He kept lifting other folks up through education.  He kept fulfilling his “double duty” long after he hung up his uniform. And, graduates, that’s what we need from all of you.  We need you to channel the magic of Tuskegee toward the challenges of today.  And here’s what I really want you to know -- you have got everything you need to do this.  You’ve got it in you. Because even if you’re nervous or unsure about what path to take in the years ahead, I want you to realize that you’ve got everything you need right now to succeed.  You’ve got it. 

In her own way, she's telling them to be citizens. 

Bibi's Speech

Benjamin Netanyahu during his IDF days. Shamelessly pinched from here. 

(Wikicommons/GPO)

Before we get to Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech, may I just pause to say: hubba hubba?

Now that I have squandered my right to be taken seriously, I proceed. 

Not sure what I think about Bibi's having been invited to speak to Congress in the first place. My initial instinct was to think the act was shameful on Speaker Boehner (not Bibi's) part. Not unconstitutional, but shameful, as it undermines the President's foreign policy and no matter how feckless that policy or the President is, showing a divided face to the world is not going to strengthen, but weaken, the nation. The precedent is just awful, and in Democratic hands will lead, mark my words, to craptastic scenes of tinpot dictators coming before Congress to undermine any Republican president's foreign policy efforts. I thank God it didn't occur to Tip O'Neill to invite the Soviet Premier to Congress to talk about a nuclear freeze during the Reagan administration.

I can make two counter arguments. The first is that President Obama is so weak in foreign policy that his own administration is already operating at counter purposes with itself. The Washington Times ran a story in January that I am surprised didn't get more play. The thrust of the story was Hillary Clinton's utter incompetence and malfeasance in Libya, but to me the truly stunning revelation was that the Pentagon was actively undermining her and conducting its own negotiations. 

Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.
The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns.

I read that story and thought: "Expletive!" Forget whether Hillary was right or wrong, who the hell is running the country if State and Defense are conducting independent negotiations? And where the hell is the President? Someone ought to have been sacked and made an example of. If I were President and found out my own Defense Dept. was running its own independent foreign policy, heads would have rolled immediately. No one else seems to have been the least bit troubled by this revelation, however -- neither that we have a rogue Defense dept, nor that the President seems uninterested in the fact that his two most powerful agencies are showing two different faces to the world. 

Which leads to the second argument in defense of Boehner, which is that there comes a point where the threat to the nation or the world is so serious that you've no choice but to put the usual rules aside in a desperate attempt to thwart a deadly stupid policy. If the President has lost control of his own foreign policy, are you supposed to just sit there?

Then I heard Netanyahu's speech, which made a good case that Boehner's in this latter, uncomfortable position. The President is desperate to do something very foolish, to the entire world's harm -- and aren't we even going to discuss it?  

I am not one who believes Iran can be prevented from developing the bomb if it's determined to do so ( my big gripe with conservative critics of the President has been that no one ever explains how they'd prevent Iran from getting the bomb -- they just complain that he's not stopping them).  Nor do I believe for a second that Iran is going to abide by any agreement in the first place. So I don't see why we have to help them along by dropping sanctions. So I agree wholeheartedly with at least this portion of what Bibi had to say: 

I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite -- would only wet Iran's appetite for more.
Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?
Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world's: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?
This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb.And many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

 So. Still thinking about it. Post speech, I feel mildly better about the fact of its having been given. To close on a style point, qua speech, it was enormously refreshing to hear a straightforward argument, introduced graciously, backed by evidence, and delivered as if something were at stake. As an audience member, I felt I was a grown up being addressed by a grown-up. It wasn't another Sophomore student government speech. 

Or Anyone Else, For That Matter

Princeton's Robert George has a clear and cogent summary of attitudes Catholics should have toward ANY encyclical on any topic, including this calm and wise introduction:

It seems that virtually nobody in the public media [I would have said "virtually nobody at all" --ed.] is interested in being taught by the Pope in his magisterial capacity. Instead, all the talk is about how the encyclical can or can't be used to advance political agendas. Catholics who fear that the Pope is a secret (or perhaps not-so-secret) radical left-winger, are preemptively questioning the Pope's authority as pope to address questions of the environment at all.  Catholics who hope that the pontiff is indeed a radical left-winger, anticipating an encyclical that could have been written by the Environmental Defense Fund (if not the Earth Liberation Front), have suddenly embraced the idea that popes indeed have authority to teach and even bind the consciences of faithful Catholics on questions of moral obligation.

RTWT, it's a good precis for Catholics and of interest to those who wish to understand how Catholics understand such things. I agree completely with the good professor. But I have to admit I also feel the cartoon's pain. Not so much about Protestants -- the young evangelicals have totally embraced environmentalism. I'm braced for the coming misuse of whatever the Pope says (which I expect to be sensible and interesting even if challenging to my sensibilities. I predict it will follow the Benedict XVI line about the connection between people's interest in the environment and the defense of life and human dignity. It won't be stated with the same precision as BXVI and will give everyone reason to be uncomfortable).  


No, what I especially dread is the nearly inevitable overheated, overstated, nuance-free mutual anathemas about to be pronounced in the Catholic blogosphere by people who ought to be models of the reasoned debate and open dialogue Benedict & Francis, each in his own way called/ are calling for.  Please, Please, Lord: let Catholic writers and apologists model what reasoned engagement seasoned by the virtues of temperance and forbearance look like (and not make me feel ashamed to be Catholic).  My version:

(And if blogger could stop being hinky every time one uses a block quote, that would be nice too.)

Election 2014, Good News, Bad News

The bad news is the GOP took the Senate probably just in time to own the country's problems and elect another Dem president in 2016.

The good news? Quite a bit of it!

1. The GOP took the state legislatures and governorships in numbers that will have lasting impact in the states no matter what happens in 2016.

2. The quality of the GOP class just elected. You know how I always complain about Nixon ruining the country -- not with Watergate per se, but because backlash against him caused a wave of the nation's wickedest politicians to be elected? I think there's a good chance Obama just did the same in reverse. (And Henry Waxman, emblem of the nation's wickedest congressional class, retired rather than stick around. Which is perhaps emblematic of his class being vanquished at last.)

I happened to tune in to Rush Limbaugh for a few moments a day or two after the election when he was complaining bitterly about Reince Preibus (GOP chairman) culling candidates in this manner:

On Oct. 1, 2013, 16 potential Senate Republican candidates were met at baggage claim in Washington, D.C.’s Reagan National Airport by trackers—those annoying, hyperactive, politics-obsessed, camera-wielding twentysomethings whose job is to make a candidate lose his or hers. After a series of fundraising events and policy briefings, the candidates met at the offices of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and recounted their stories with tales of their personal, belligerent Democrat. “We said that’s interesting; We’d like to show you the video of you and how you reacted to the tracker because we put those trackers on you,” said Sen. Rob Portman, the NRSC Finance Vice Chairman.

Unless I'm confusing this piece with another similar one, I think an earlier version of the story indicated that these faux reporters specifically hounded candidates on abortion and "war on women" issues. This bothered Limbaugh for some reason -- he took it as the Party trying to downplay social issues. I think it was smart. I don't want the pro-life cause at the mercy of the Todd Akins of this world.

[Let me just digress for a moment here to say something about that. Anyone can fumble in a debate situation. But Akin's gaffe -- arguing that pregnancy from rape is a non-issue because it rarely occurs thanks to a biological defense mechanism-- was an idea advanced by Dr. Jack Willkie in the early 1990s. It may or may not have some scientific basis, but in addition to sounding horribly insensitive to the victim of an assault ("is it real rape?"), it's rhetorically weak because it opens the door to the idea that abortion is the right solution to rape cases. Most engaged pro-lifers abandoned that argument swiftly. To my mind the problem with Todd Akin was not that he was completely tin-eared, but more that he clearly hadn't thought seriously about pro-life issues since the 1990s.]

I am tired of the GOP -- both the party and its voters-- accepting as pro-life anyone who says he'll support a human life amendment with no further questions. To my mind, putting people to the test and training them is a sign of taking pro-life issues MORE seriously, not less. The social issues are winning issues in the proper hands, and we have a class of Senate candidates (now Senators-elect) who seem to be stellar: whip-smart, disciplined and of good character -- people who didn't need to run away from abortion and the birth control mandate because they are sure of themselves and know how to give as good as they get. High hopes!

3. The defeat of the "War on Women."  Others have written about this so I won't add much except to say it's naive to think the war on women tactic will just go away. What's been defeated, hopefully, is GOP/pro-life defeatism. (Ditto the whining from folks who default in every election to how much the media are against us and there's no real difference between the parties. Whatevs. The media and party hacks you have always with you. If you can't figure out your way around those things, maybe you're not a good candidate. Those assertions have differing degrees of truth, but they're both just helpless downer talk from people who are essentially apolitical and want the world to just change without anyone having to make political arguments as opposed to moral assertions. There is always something to be done....)

The next few items are just things I personally find yummy in the results.

4.  My 3-decade losing streak is broken.  For the first time in my life a candidate I voted for in a state/local election won. Maryland, of all places, elected a pro-life GOP governor (ditto Massachusetts and, most shockingly, Illinois). I wish him well. The state didn't give him a legislature to work with, but it felt good on election night. (For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my state!) To what do I attribute his decisive win? Two things: Gov. O'Malley's rain tax. (Really? Even Marylanders have some limits). And Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown's being a poor candidate. The only thing he was really tasked with as Lt. Gov. was the roll-out of Maryland's Obamacare exchange, which was even worse than the Obamacare rollout itself. And he doesn't come off as the brightest fellow. By the end of campaign season the Anthony Brown signs had disappeared and generic  placards urging us to "Vote for the Democrats" were everywhere.

5. Wendy Davis lost in Texas. That's no surprise, but you know what's delicious? The poster child for late-term abortion on demand didn't even win the women's vote. Along those same lines: though I would have held my nose and voted for him if I were in NH just to wrest the Senate from the villainous Harry Reid, I don't mind that Scott Brown lost in New Hampshire. He ran a great campaign qua campaign, for which I give him credit, but he's a presidentially handsome pro-choice Republican, and had he won a certain wing of the party would be foisting him on us as a presidential candidate. No, thanks.  Ditto gay Republican Carl DeMaio's loss in CA-52. I kinda like the guy in the abstract and setting aside his disastrous ideas about family policy, but had he won he'd have been foist on us as the changing face of the GOP (indeed, the race was close and the Washington Times jumped the gun and ran such a story).

6. Scott Walker, Scott Walker, Scott Walker. I think nothing made me as happy Tuesday night as Scott Walker's re-election, simply because I viewed his race as a straight-up case of good (man of upstanding character, champion of little people) versus evil (public sector union bosses defending graft and incompetence). He proves in the hands of the right guy there are no third-rail issues in American politics.  My current choice for President 2016.

7. My other pet races: Mia Love -- first black Republican congresswoman;  Tim Scott, first black senator elected from the South -- and he's GOP;  Tom Cotton, senator-elect from Arkansas, because he talks to voters like this . (His victory speech --watch it!-- is almost a Reagan-like "time for choosing" speech.)  Mitch McConnell: because some people in the GOP have unjustly accused him of being weak or a RINO, not understanding the guy is a brilliant tactician and parliamentarian to whom we owe much.

For the record, I did endure two heartbreaks Tuesday night. It's astonishing Ed Gillespie almost beat Mark Warner in VA and sad that he didn't. Ditto my man Dan Bongino in a hard-fought congressional battle here in MD. You can tell what kind of man Bongino is by how gracious he is in his concession letter to his supporters.

I also agree with whichever wag on Twitter it was who said the election was not an endorsement of Republicans, but a restraining order on the Democrats. That's exactly right. Conservatives have a brief window now in which to make the case to the working poor, "workers" middle class families, blacks and latinos that their policies are the fairest and best. PLEASE, GOP, do not blow it by a) doing nothing and always being in reactive mode or b) having the first thing you do be passing business tax cuts or repealing the minimum wage hike -- moves which might be good eventually, but will be bad optics in this economy and will slam the open window shut, hard.

Let your first move be surprising, like pushing for education vouchers -- everyone's against the teacher's unions now. Or maybe something like Paul Ryan's opportunity grant w/ expansion of the earned income tax credit. That would help poor families right away, would be difficult for the President to veto, and would get people to sit up and listen.

Nothing Against Patrick Modiano...

...but should we be taking Literature advice from people who write like this? Here's how the Nobel committee announced this year's literature prize:

The academy said the award of 8 million Swedish crowns ($1.1 million) was "for the art of memory with which he has evoked the most ungraspable human destinies and uncovered the life-world of the occupation."

Ungraspable human destinies? Life-world? Ugh. What a bunch of fashionable academic clap-trap. 

Update: However... interesting that Modiano writes about the German occupation of France and presumably Jewish suffering among other things. (I don't know his work at all as that remark suggests). Didn't think you could safely reference Jews in Europe, so that's something. 

So We're Clear

Shamelessly pinched from CatholicVote.org

"Not Me" Foreign Policy

Shamelessly pinched from here.

I know I'm late to the party in denouncing the President's admitting publicly that he hasn't a clue what to do about IS. (I can't call it ISIS, that just makes me think of Saturday morning television.) Dude, here's how you pronounce that: "All options are currently on the table." Same thing, threatens the enemy rather than giving him a good laugh.  You're not just talking to the people in the room, you know.  Which brings me to Noemie Emery's piece:  

When one thing goes wrong, it may be an accident, but when five do at once—Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and our border—the man at the helm may have something to do with it, and a foreign policy based largely on John Lennon lyrics may be the proximate cause.

And then there's this (curtsy American Digest), in which a Facebook friend of Glenn Reynolds says America's becoming Potterville. Quoted in full.

Let’s accept, arguendo, that the outgoing DIA chief is right, and that we are now in an era of danger similar to the mid-1930s. How did we get here? It’s worth looking back into the mists of time — an entire year, to Labor Day weekend 2013. What had not happened then? It’s quite a list, actually: the Chinese ADIZ, the Russian annexation of Crimea, the rise of ISIS, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the fall of Mosul, the end of Hungarian liberal democracy, the Central American refugee crisis, the Egyptian-UAE attacks on Libya, the extermination of Iraqi Christians, the Yazidi genocide, the scramble to revise NATO’s eastern-frontier defenses, the Kristallnacht-style pogroms in European cities, the reemergence of mainstream anti-Semitism, the third (or fourth, perhaps) American war in Iraq, racial riots in middle America, et cetera and ad nauseam.

All that was in the future just one year ago.

What is happening now is basically America’s version of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” The President of the United States — supported to an exceptional extent by an electorate both uncomprehending and untrusting of the outside world — is Clarence the Angel, and he’s showing us what the world would be like if we’d never been born, Unsurprisingly, Bedford Falls is now Pottersville, and it’s a terrible place. Unfortunately we do not get to revert to the tolerable if modest status quo at the end of the lesson: George Bailey will eventually have to shell the town and retake it street by street from Old Man Potter’s Spetsnaz.
But the larger point here is not what’s happening, because what’s happening is obvious. Things are falling apart. The point is how fast it’s come. It takes the blood and labor of generations to build a general peace, and that peace is sustained by two pillars: a common moral vision, and force majeure. We spent a quarter-century chipping away at the latter, and finally discarded the former, and now that peace is gone. All this was the work of decades. 

Look back, again, to Labor Day weekend 2013, and understand one thing: its undoing was the work of mere months.

It's Not The Dispassion, It's The Haste

FOX news was on in the background of a family visit last night, its reporters and commentators hyperventilating over President Obama's allegedly dispassionate response to the downing of the Malaysian airliner.

Here's Charles Krauthammer for instance:

The only way to explain the unbelievable passive nature of his speech today…there was no passion there was no interest in this. And I think if you want to explain it rationally, maybe he thinks the U.S. doesn't have to do anything,

Hmm. Far be it from me to defend this amateurish President, but is this criticism fair or wise?

Three observations.

1) I didn't hear anyone propose a concrete policy the President should be pursuing yet isn't.

2) Is it the President's job to emote over national and international tragedies, or to be a calming presence? I don't find his remarks or affect dispassionate necessarily, though I understand why some would. I think an argument can be made he's trying to be level-headed. Since we don't yet have clear facts, great moral outrage would be wasted since there would be no one concrete at whom to direct it.  His address seemed alright to me given what we know so far.

3) Compare Obama's remarks with those of President Reagan after the Soviets downed KAL-007. Reagan's reaction is definitely superior -- he lays out the facts and makes the moral case against our enemies and has the appropriate passion--  but he also has the advantage of working from facts rather than conjecture -- perhaps because he gave his speech to the nation four days after the event and not the following morning.

If there's a criticism to be made of the President's remarks, perhaps it's that he squandered his ability to say anything meaningful by commenting prematurely. He suffers from his generation's belief that one must always be commenting, whether or not one has anything to say.

Was That So Hard?

I've been in Rome (woohoo!), camping out with my 2.5 million besties to attend the first-in-history Mass concelebrated by two popes: Reigning & Emeritus. It happens they were canonizing two other popes: John XXIII & JP the Great.  More on that when the jet lag passes (returning West is always much harder on me than going, plus we pulled a few all-nighters while away).


Meanwhile, two items. First: Ugh! Am I going to read this stupid Pikkety book? Not that book is stupid, just that it's everywhere and I don't feel like tackling it. But it's everywhere.

Second: You know how for a while I was incensed about how popular Catholic writers objecting to "enhanced interrogation techniques" always begged the question? They'd start with the true premise, "The Church forbids torture," and then conclude, "Waterboarding is wrong, QED, and you're less than human if you disagree."

Drove me crazy not because I wish to defend torture, but because I'd like to see an ARGUMENT laid out instead of the usual jump-straight-to-name-calling. (Though I did find a decent exchange at last in 2009.) Not sure why this comes up again --apparently Sarah Palin said something while I was away that got everyone exorcised about this topic? Anyway, here's the pro-argument, although as you will see it is not exactly "pro," it's just careful not to make too sweeping a judgment.

And here's a good response (minus the last paragraph which is a bit much).

My point in bringing this up is not to discuss the merits of waterboarding, though. It's simply to congratulate Todd Aglialoro & Michelle Arnold for showing the blogosphere what a dispassionate and well-reasoned discussion looks like. I feel better!

Why Obama Won

Watch what Michelle says here in response to the second question (roughly minute 1 to 2). That connection with people who have boring jobs they aren't passionate about is why Obama won and why the GOP can't connect -- because, with the exception of Rick Santorum (who is too angry-seeming for national office) and Paul Ryan behind the scenes but not yet too much publicly, no one in the GOP has mastered the language of defending the little guy, even if its self-understanding is being for the little guy. (I thought I wrote a long post about this around the election, but can't find it. Maybe it was a mind-post. Oh, wait, here it is: what about the quiet americans?)