Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Apocalypse Soonish?

Capitalism and socialism fought a war, and socialism won.

Last night, halfway through a thoroughly depressing conversation about Fannie, Freddie, and Merrill, I looked over at my friend the anarchist: “When this all goes to hell, can I hole up with you in Idaho?”

So that’s the plan. If — when — there’s a run on the banks, when the Treasury has to start printing cash so the FDIC can bail them out, when the bottom falls out of the world, we’re heading west. There are farms out there, and generators. Guns to keep off looters.

It’s a little bit Galt’s Gulch, a little bit Reign of Fire. It’s also thoroughly ridiculous, and after ten minutes of planning we looked around and started laughing. It’s hard to imagine that kind of a world, and we all felt silly for doing it. Every generation has thought the world was going to end. Most of them were wrong.

I might want to invest in gold anyway.

Oh my God, really?

Andrew Sullivan nukes the fridge:

Here [Palin] is last year:

“I’m not a doom and gloom environmentalist like Al Gore blaming the changes in our climate on human activity.”

Here she is this morning:

“I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change.”

Was she lying then or lying now?

Option #3: She changed her mind. It happens sometimes. Thank God.

I’ll have the primordial soup, please.

Creeping Christianism, Batman! Joe Biden claims to believe that life begins at conception (NYT).

What utter nonsense. Everyone knows that life begins in the Precambrian.

Let’s dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago.

I am so over Andrew Sullivan. His incessant Palin rants remind me of nothing so much as the crazed Obama COLB people. Conspiracy theories can be great fun, but like their close cousins, they’re pretty terrible ways of making electoral decisions.

Of course, that’s what happens in a democracy (see also: here). Populism wins out every time in a numbers game. The only way out is to have a real elite that commands real respect, because it speaks to real people.

Bobby Kennedy quoted Aeschylus from memory, but the truly remarkable part of his speech was that people responded. Here were admittedly unoriginal ideas, but they were framed in the language of a cultural elite, and they still worked. There were no riots in Indianapolis. It wasn’t just his Boston Brahmin accent or his clothes that marked him out: he was talking about Aeschylus, whose name many of my Yale classmates wouldn’t recognized. It wasn’t a prepared speech. It wasn’t a calculated ploy. It was just the way he thought and talked — and it worked, because erudition was respectable.

We don’t have that natural, intellectual elite any more. We sneak it in from time to time: when Obama gave his Call to Renewal keynote, he used Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling. He didn’t say so, and indeed he couldn’t have — forget about Honest Tea and arugula rocket, just imagine the pundits’ response to name-dropping a Danish existentialist!

On one of his wild oscillations, Sullivan swings close to this:

The good is a society where genuine talent and expertise and education are valued, and regarded as virtues in a public official. Conservatives - until they turned into religious populists - believed it was a good thing that our leaders have advanced education, for example. This is a good elite, and we need it. The bad sort of elite is when the educated class starts looking down their noses at the wisdom and common sense of ordinary people, insulate themselves from where they came from and their families and have contempt for the mores of many less educated Americans.

(Unfortunately, he jumps right back into the attack-dog politics, sans lipstick, in detailing Palin’s educational inadequacies.)

So sure, Sarah Palin isn’t an intellectual. But that’s not the problem, or at least not the root: America, and the West as a whole, no longer see intellectualism as an aspect of the good life. It is, at best, a career for disconnected eggheads. The rise of Kronman’s “research ideal,” or Foucault’s “specific intellectual,” has severed our belief in universality of truth. The modern intellectual is a specialist, concerned with a “local” truth. He doesn’t claim to find meaning or define a telos, and the tradition he engages with is only the literature of his own field. He has a speciality, and he accumulates facts for the storehouse of the ages. It doesn’t tell him, or anyone else, how to live.

No wonder the politics of ressentiment have frightened us away from elitism. When we define an elite simply by its irrelevance to everyone else, of course populism is the only answer. It isn’t enough to have joined in the argument of an intellectual tradition, or even to have come to an answer: if we leave the cave, it’s only so we can go back better prepared.

So study Aeschylus. Study Shakespeare, and Eliot, and the best things thought and said by men — but don’t hole yourself up in the ivory tower. Come back down. Use it. Show Indianapolis that it matters, that it makes you a better leader, that you understand. Stop engaging in the phony populism of an entitled elite. You don’t just deserve respect. Do something to earn it.

Shorter, Funnier Me

Can it be a child and a choice?

The GOP is more pro-choice than it thinks.

If you don’t think that abortion is murder — and, let’s face it, if you favor exemptions for rape and incest you really don’t — the morality of any given abortion comes down to what it says about the woman involved, not some deontological prohibition on abortion per se.

If the value of an embryo is as a potential person — the sort of thing that can one day have a mind and/or soul — then abortion isn’t a morally neutral thing. The trouble comes when this sort-of-bad-but-not-super-bad thing (destroying a thing that may one day become a person) comes into conflict with a woman’s decisions about her body.

If gestation happened in a box rather than a person, there would be no good reason to pull the plug. Since it does happen in a person — and since that person risks anything from discomfort and inconvenience to death — it’s not so black and white. Every circumstance is different: the ultimate question for woman with an unwanted pregnancy is how much pain, distress, and change to the rest of her life she’s willing to endure for the sake of a potential person.

It’s entirely coherent to say that abortion is bad, but that women should be able to have them. In that framework, the decision becomes a measure of circumstance and values: it tells us something about the character of the woman involved. (Of course, it might just tell us that she’s a fourteen-year-old who is psychologically unprepared to spend nine months carrying the memory of her rape — it can’t a blanket judgment of all women who have abortions or all women who don’t.)

For all the platform’s talk about banning abortion entirely, this is the framework that the McCain campaign has embraced. They want us to know that it was a choice:

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said. (Reuters)

The emphasis here is not so much in the right outcome, but the right choice. And the emphasis on agency, on people rather than incubators, can only be good for women.

Feminism for some, miniature American flags for others!

I’ve been busy moving and protesting Yale’s extracurricular bazaar —

Alternate banners include: "Go back to class"; "Yale is not for fun"; "No, I don't sing."

…and, yes, blogging elsewhere. Today, I bring you Sarah Palin as Anti-Woman:

As the Democrats’ talking points remind us ad nauseam, Hillary Clinton put eighteen million cracks in the glass ceiling. They’d love to see a woman in the White House. They care about women’s issues. They would never hold a candidate’s gender against her.

No sir, no sexism here.

As they say, read the whole thing. I disagree with Palin about a lot (creationism, abortion, sex education), but freedom from sexist attacks shouldn’t be a reward for having the right stances on the issues.

More on Palin, women, and the politics of abortion after I’ve checked this out.

Update - McCain has met Palin once

According to Sullivan, here. As Ramesh Ponnuru puts it,

Can anyone say with a straight face that Palin would have gotten picked if she were a man?”

And the more obvious it becomes that someone has been given a job simply because she’s a woman, the more men are going to resent women in the workplace. And that’s not good for any of us.

I’m worried that the strongest arguments the Dems could use against her would be those that most insidiously attack the cause of women in the workplace. Andrew Sullivan quotes a reader,

No sooner did my best friend hear about the Sarah Palin pick than I received an e-mail from her. It said simply: “Sarah Palin is a Bad Mother!”

I was at work but could not resist giving her a call to follow up.  She told me that she was watching CNN and heard that Ms. Palin had 5 children and that one was only 4 months old and born with Down Syndrome.  “How in the name of GOD, can she even think about leaving her child or taking her child on the campaign trail for 70 days?”  She was indignant.

Let me tell you why My best friend Liz matters.  She is 37 years old and Catholic.

Sarah Palin has already proved herself an energetic and forceful governor while producing children at a steady rate for the last nineteen years. Those who point out that she’s only been a governor for two of those years forget that she has been major player in the state and thorn in the side of the establishment for far longer. With a supportive husband, she’s proved quite adept at combining family with the most meteoric rise to her office in Alaskan history - she’s their youngest ever governor. Not everyone who calls themselves a feminist may like all her policies - I clearly don’t - but no one with that moniker should condone criticism of a working mother.

I should acknowledge that I find it difficult myself to imagine leaving a five-month old child for the campaign trail. But my concern is not that such criticisms of Palin are entirely unjustified, but that they increase the acceptability of anti-woman advertising in American politics.  The languages of advertising and of politics are defined entirely by precedent - which makes it an extremely conservative field. If twenty million Americans watch an advertisement next week which questions whether a mother can work with a baby, they’ll be less shocked if they watch one in four years time which questions whether a mother can work with a ten-year old. Which would be sad.

Breaking news - Sarah Palin is McCain’s running mate.

The Alaskan governor is pro-life and a Washington outsider, both of which will appeal to suburban America. McCain is really trying to pick up the angry women who supported Hilary at the same as load his ticket with representatives of truly rural, credit-crunched conservative Americans.

I’ll say it boosts his chances of winning, but at a steep price for the women’s movement. I was recently criticized by feminist friends by blogging here that a woman VP candidate, after the gender issues that have dominated coverage of Hilary’s defeat, would look like such tokenism that it could be the torchpaper to an anti-feminist backlash. Given that Palin is already being summarized as “young … and relatively unknown“, it’s not a far step to “only chosen because she’s female”. The yelling matches that erupt over her qualifications are unlikely to be helpful to the cause of women making it on merit.

Fortunately, however, there’s already a good scandal in her closet to distract us. The attack dogs are here and here.

Breaking news - Iain Dale demands conservative tech revolution

Iain Dale is the undisputed king of British bloggers. He’s also a committed conservative and has a long career behind him of print publishing, political journalism and activism. So when he failed to be selected for the “A-list” of centrally-approved electoral candidates to be fast tracked into a winnable seat, many were shocked. Did Central Office not realise just how potent internet celebrity can be when fighting a campaign? Or were they warning that a searchable history of independent minded critique is a major bar to promotion under the party standard?

The perfect irony is that the “secret” list of local candidates with this central sanction was leaked to the outside world only thanks to…another leading conservative blog, ConservativeHome - which incidentally, is behind this wonderful campaign against anti-Americanism. ConservativeHome is more successful as a massive source of information on the movement, with a range of different feeds, while Iain Dale has the cult of personality of a star solo commentator and more name recognition outside political circles. That fact that both can thrive, along with Guido Fawkes, a superficially anonymous parliamentary rumormonger, shows that there’s still plenty of space in the market.

That’s the story behind today’s column by Dale in the right-leaning British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph. With his usual delicate tact, Dale politely suggests that the Conservative Party has been so suspicious of the independence of bloggers that it has focused on distancing itself from the community rather than integrating within it.

They may be Conservative but they won’t trot out the party line like a robot. So CCHQ views them with suspicion, so much so that they have now deleted any links to Conservative blogs (apart from ConservativeHome and those written by Tory MPs and councillors) on their website. How very short-sighted…[given that] Conservatives.com gets fewer hits than many of the top blogs…and blog readership is increasing by between 30 per cent and 50 per cent each year.

Of course, any organization which views independence as the problem fails to understand the internet. The aesthetic of the internet is defined by its slight distance from ‘real life’, and the accompanying sense of liminality. Any media that can be produced by one guy with an computer draws its identity from its grassroots feel - and you won’t integrate into the online community unless your fellow bloggers feel you are one of them. And a blog depends on the online community with a strange paradox - bloggers compete for market share all the time, but you won’t get anywhere unless people respect you enough to link to you, repay citations with a spot on their blogroll and welcome you as part of a cultural network, rather than a set of pedestals for individuals. The system is based on mutual self-congratulation and hat tipping. Which is why a blog has to have the sociability of an individual, rather than an organization - particularly in this super-cynical age in which retaining a PR officer is enough to make any media bunny distrust an institution. The Dems and the Republicans have official blogs but they’re not picked up much by the rest of the blogosphere - yesterday’s live video feed of the Democratic Convention had only attracted nine comments at the time of writing. Their successes come from their support of independent, personable bloggers, bringing bloggers together at special ‘bloggers briefings’ from major think tanks and policy departments, facilitating live-blogging and minute-by-minute reporting with Twitter feeds of campaign events, and lending approval to new media support centers like Techrepublican.com and the Republican Technology Council.

Dale’s is a timely call for the Conservative Party to embrace the blogosphere.

Once the US election is out of the way, the Tories need to recruit the Republican Party’s best internet brains and use them to drag their web operations into the 21st century.

So maybe that could translate into jobs for Nicky and me?