Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
Is Big Business Bailing on the Republicans?
Here’s some evidence that the oligarchs may at least be party shopping. Is it Bush’s perceived fiscal incompetence? Or is it the Republicans’ excessive concern with the "social issues"? It does appear that American concern with the social issues is declining. Is Dr. Pat right about the impending populist-libertarian realignment? Which party is more populist? Which is more libertarian? Is the whole populist-libertarian distinction of little use in really understanding what’s going on now? Certainly we’re not really being haunted by either the ghost of William Jennnings Bryan or the ghost of Tom Joad!
Is the ever-expanding "menu of choice" the narrative that explains our time? Our nation’s history? But studies also show that Americans are more concerned about income inequality than they have been in some years.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [252] | 10/2/2007 3:07 PM
|
|
Anita Keeps Charging the Same Hill
The Clarence Thomas interview on "60 Minutes" seems to have smoked Anita Hill out of the woodwork--and not to her credit. She continues to stick to her ridiculous charges of some 16 years ago and to no good purpose. At the time of the charges I remember finding them ridiculous. Of course, a superior who demands favors or implies that the giving of them will advance one’s career, has something to answer for. But Hill’s testimony never amounted to more than a suggestion of crude or tawdry banter. It may say something about me to divulge that I was not particularly shocked by any of it--but if it does, I guess I’ll take the criticism. Beyond that, however, I might further suggest that a woman who is shocked by such banter will find it easy enough to avoid it or put an end to it without Senate hearings or legislation on the matter. But that’s not really my point here. All talk of "sexual harassment" is and was mere distraction and diversion. Debating "sexual harassment" was a way for those forces who had it in for Thomas to move the discussion away from the real (and uncomfortable) questions his nomination brought to the fore. What is more important here (for purposes of this discussion) is that I do not believe--and don’t think any sane person should believe--that any of what Hill described happened as she said it did. Why? The difference in the demeanors of Hill and Thomas says everything to me. Hill says: "[Thomas’ approach] is really so typical of people accused of wrongdoing. They trash their accusers." Now, if she were accusing Bill Clinton of harassment, she may have a point. That is exactly what Clinton and any other man who was less a man than Thomas would have done. A lesser man than Thomas would not have spared her the condemnation she may deserve (and public opinion might now tolerate) when giving that interview. But Thomas did not ask himself what public opinion would tolerate about Anita Hill--either in responding to the charges initially, or in reflecting on them in this recent interview and book. Thomas rightly restrained himself; seeing--not only that she deserved some charity due to her own lack of judgment--but that the real culprit in what happened to him was not Ms. Hill, but a coarsening manipulation of partisan politics that requires a much more thoughtful and directed attack. He did not waste his bullets. The worst thing he had to say about Anita Hill in that interview was that she was a "mediocre" employee. Beyond that, he showed her pity. And that, I think, was the rub all along for Ms. Hill. Perhaps Thomas’s great sin--in Anita’s but never the Public’s eyes--was in being a better man than she deserves and her keen awareness of her own mediocrity combined with his generous pity. At least that’s what it looks like to me.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [245] | 10/2/2007 2:27 PM
|
|
Here’s a Conference Honoring ME
At Belmont Abbey--very near Charlotte--on October 19-20. The distinguished speakers include Dan Mahoney, Mark Henrie, Pat Deneen, Thomas Hibbs, Mary Keys, Robert Preston, and me.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [263] | 10/2/2007 2:31 PM
|
|
Mansfield on Bollinger on Ahmadinejad
Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. is at his sly and ironic best in skewering Columbia President Lee Bollinger’s hapless efforts. Here’s his conclusion: By inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, President Bollinger got himself confused between the business of politics and the virtue of a university. He tried to bring his university into the political arena, and he meant well to our country, but instead of embarrassing our common enemy he embarrassed himself. Read the whole thing.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 10/2/2007 11:50 AM
|
|
Three Formidable Birthdays
...tomorrow: the Catholic novelist Graham Greene, the poet Wallace Stevens, and Gandhi.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [248] | 10/1/2007 9:11 PM
|
|
HRC Under the Microscope
Is it a case of buyer’s remorse? Whatever it is, it appears that Hillary Clinton is suddenly the subject of harsh critique NOT so much from the usual suspects, but from her "friends." She is attacked for everything from her evasiveness to her laugh. There is no doubt that a problem Mrs. Clinton is going to have in this campaign is that there are just an awful lot of people who do not and cannot like her. And now it is clear that those kinds of people populate both sides of the political aisle. There’s too much of it coming out for it to be a mere coincidence, so the question is: Why now? There are two ways to view this, it seems to me. First, it is either an indication of something that is potentially very big and important for the general election--something Dems are gearing up to defend themselves against or vainly trying to prevent from becoming an issue by knocking her out in the homestretch. Or, second, there is a hope that by airing all this dirty laundry now it won’t smell as bad in the general. Let’s admit she’s "like Al Gore" and she’s got an annoying habit of inappropriate nervous laughter. Let’s admit that she’s got something of that "fingernails on the blackboard" quality to her. And then, let’s dare the Republicans to try and beat us with that stick.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [385] | 10/1/2007 8:27 PM
|
|
Justice Thomas Interview
"Sixty Minutes" interviewed Justice Clarence Thomas. I didn’t see it, but I am told that it was pretty good. I bring only a few of his answers ro your attention:
How much of his life is determined by his race?
"Oh, goodness. I don’t know. I’m black. How much of your life is determined by being male? I have no idea. I’m black. That’s a fact of life. I’m 5’8 1/2" tall. I don’t know how much of my life is determined by being 5’8 1/2" tall. It’s just a part of who I am," Thomas tells Kroft.
"But you think of yourself as a black man," Kroft says.
"I’m a man. I’m a man, first and foremost. I’m a citizen of this country. And I happen to be black. I am a human being," Thomas replies.
One more:
You’ve been successful. You moved on. You don’t care about people and your race," Kroft says.
"Oh, that’s silliness," the justice replies.
"You do care," Kroft remarks.
"Oh, obviously I do," Thomas says. "Come on, you know? But it’s none of their business. How much does Justice Scalia care about Italians? Did you ask him that? Did anyone ever ask him? Give me a break. Do I help people? Absolutely. Do I help, love helping black people? Absolutely. And I do. But do I like helping all people? Yes. In particular I like helping people who are disadvantaged, people who don’t come from the best circumstances. Do white people live in homeless shelters? Do Hispanics live in homeless shelters? Is disadvantaged exclusive province of blacks? No."
His autobiography is published today. I already bought a few copies of
My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [244] | 10/1/2007 8:18 AM
|
|
Happy Birthday President Carter
Tomorrow is Jimmy’s birthday. He is out with yet another book, this one more boring than controversial. We Georgians are supposed to defend our own, but I’ll leave our president in your hands.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 9/30/2007 8:29 PM
|
|
What’s Going on in Fred’s Head
This very interesting NYT account portrays Senator Thompson as having been very thoughtful and not lazy at all. His reflections on the tough call that was his vote to convict Clinton are subtle and true to the facts. He has spun his views to make himself seem more conservative now than he was then, but all along he’s been a true friend of federalism. Thr remarkably self-examined Fred had good reasons for wanting to leave the senate. But they also suggest that he doesn’t really want to enter the White House. All in all, this article elevates my opinion of Fred the man, but maybe at the expense of Fred the candidate.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [61] | 9/30/2007 8:22 PM
|
|
The Banality of Rand and Greenspan
Andrew Ferguson mocks tales of purpose-driven selfish and rational heroes triumphing over the parasites who always threaten to drag them down. (Thanks to Rob Jeffrey.)
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [251] | 9/30/2007 7:53 AM
|
|
A Reminder to Nashville Cats
I’ll will speaking at Belmont on October 5 and 6 (Friday evening and Saturday morning). Learn more about the event and the wonderful organization that’s sponsoring me HERE.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 9/29/2007 12:57 PM
|
|
2013?
The WaPo’s Thomas Ricks says that, by and large, no matter who’s in the White House (well, Dennis Kucinich excepted), Iraq policy will look pretty much the same. The success of the surge seems to have taken big changes off the table. So of course we won’t hear about Iraq in the general election, right?
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [422] | 9/29/2007 6:15 AM
|
|
Here Piggy, Piggy . . .
. . . Farmer Clinton is bringin’ the slop to the trough. I heard Larry Kudlow claim on Hugh Hewitt’s show today that this is the kind of thing that is going to ensure the Dems defeat in ’08--no matter who the GOP candidate is. His argument is that the voters saw through the out of control spending of Congress, this explains the defeat of the GOP in ’06, and if the Dems want to go down this path in such an obvious way, they’re only doing themselves a huge disservice and making things easy for us. I haven’t thought deeply about this perspective, but I want to buy it. Of course, that’s why I am suspicious of it. Still, it’s an interesting line of argument to contemplate and there may be something to it . . . But about that $5000--can we make it retro-active? Also, I wonder what Mark Steyn has to say about this? It might pump up our numbers against the jihadis.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [248] | 9/28/2007 8:10 PM
|
|
More on the Male/Female Happiness Gap
. . . can be found here. The article begins with the observation that women report less happiness than men in being with their own parents and speculates that the reason for this is that, for women, being with parents often means work. But I must say that in my own life, my parents are one of my greatest sources of joy and I almost never feel "stress" when I’m around them. Of course, they are young and so don’t yet need my help. Indeed, when I’m with them, I work less! They take over with the kids and insist that I do other things--like shop unencumbered or read a book uninterrupted. I hope I will remember how good they have been to me when they do need my help.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments [250] | 9/28/2007 2:42 PM
|
|
Acceptable and Unacceptable Ways to Scam the Rich
Ramesh Ponnuru raises this question: If conservatives could implement their favorite Social Security remedies, such as the progressive indexing Pres. Bush endorsed in 2005, the affluent will see lower benefits while their taxes remain the same. If liberals get their favorite remedies, such as abolishing the upper limit on income subject to the payroll tax, which Sen. Obama has cautiously endorsed, the rich will pay higher taxes and receive the same benefits. Either way, Social Security becomes a worse deal for the upper quintile. If “a benefit cut would make rich people stop supporting Social Security,” he asks, “why wouldn’t a tax increase have the same effect? Is the theory that rich people can’t do math?” There are two questions. First, why should it matter to liberals whether Social Security becomes a worse deal for the rich in the one way or the other? The rule here is, “Not one step backward.” The lesson of the 2005 liberal victory on Social Security is that they have no interest in the question raised by Mickey Kaus at the time: “Universality is extremely expensive,” he said. Devoting a large portion of our GDP to mailing “Social Security checks to rich and poor alike” can’t possibly be “the highest and best use” of it. Such arguments are of no interest whatsoever to liberals who have spent decades wresting GDP points away from the private sector for the public sector to use. Any “reforms” of the welfare state that re-privatize those points, or lead in any direction but the acquisition of additional GDP points by the public sector, are non-starters. Secondly, why should liberals believe the rich will continue to support Social Security if it becomes a worse deal for them because of tax increases, but threaten to start looking for exit doors if it becomes a worse deal because of benefit cuts? The short answer is, yes, liberals do think the rich can’t add. The longer answer is, why should they think differently? Social Security has been a bad deal for affluent Americans for 72 years, but the defense and steady expansion of the program has never been any sort of political liability for liberals. Our social insurance system has flourished, politically, by the simple expedient of marrying conspicuous benefits to unobtrusive taxes. What incentive do liberals have to abandon a winning formula? Until 1993, the portion of the payroll tax devoted to Medicare was capped, as the larger Social Security portion still is. I don’t remember any outcry when that cap was lifted. Just because liberals never have paid a political price for Social Security taxes doesn’t mean they never will, however. Abolishing the Social Security Wage Base would be a huge tax increase – a 12.4% surcharge on all income over $100,000. It would affect one in every six households. It would, additionally, be quite awkward, given that the liberal party line on entitlements is that Social Security is fundamentally sound, and entitlement reform really means health care cost controls to bail out Medicare and Medicaid. That’s a big tax increase to fix what we’ve been assured is a very small problem. If conservatives can’t turn such contradictions into a teaching moment, we deserve a long walk in the wilderness.
Posted by William Voegeli | Link to this Entry | Comments [427] | 9/28/2007 2:17 PM
|
|
Biblical Action Figures...
I’m more and more convinced, as you know, that what we really know about human psychology points in the direction of a personal God. But I didn’t necessarily mean this. (Thanks to Ivan the K.)
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [249] | 9/28/2007 11:53 AM
|
|
Citizenship Test
The NY Times has a front-page article on the new test given to folks who want to be citizens. It is a new test, the first change since 1986. Note all the other articles or sites related to the issue, including this one that asks the same questions of those who are citizens already; they don’t do so well. This is the new test (pdf file).
Obviously, we can have a perfectly interesting conversation on what a citizenship test should look like, is this one good enough, etc. I’m not all that interested in any kind of multiple choice test myself, perhaps especially on something of this importance. And yet, I understand that some sort of test has to be given. And this may do. My father also had to take a multiple choice civics test in 1962 (which he probably cheated to pass, since he really couldn’t read English). But he didn’t fail on the test the judge gave him, as he stood in front of him: Dad was asked whether he would be willing to serve in the U.S. military, if needed. Yes. Where does your mother live now? Budapest. Would you be willing to serve as a bombardier, if asked? Yes. Would you be willing to go to war against Hungary, if asked? Yes. Would you be willing to bomb Budapest? Pause. Yes. What would your mother think of this? She would understand. Congratulations, Mr. Schramm, you are now a citizen of the United States of America.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [250] | 9/28/2007 10:38 AM
|
|
The Most Influential Books
We thank John Lewis once again. In the midst of a very bold and interesting "rant" below, he included this fascinating list from the Library of Congress. The most influential books seem to be "self-help" in the sense of "how in the hell am I supposed to live" books. My favorite self-help book is Walker Percy’s LOST IN THE COSMOS: THE LAST SELF-HELP BOOK.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [248] | 9/28/2007 9:00 AM
|
|
