…let it be this one.
And let’s get Republican leaders (whoever they may be) to read it.
Maybe I should start a new blog category, “election 2016.”
Sore winners on the left
I originally published this post on November 10, 2008. It remains very apropos today, so here it is again, with just a few words changed for clarity.
An excellent observation from Baldilocks:
Losers find it almost impossible to act like winners even when they win.
Since Obama’s victory, troll visits to right-wing blogs are up, dropping comments that show all the class of second graders in the schoolyard singing “Nah nah nah boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.”
You’d think they’d be happy to have won, with no need to waste time and energy on such entertainment. But it you’d think that, you’d think wrong. For a certain not inconsiderable segment of the Obamaphile population, the feeling of triumph goes hand in hand with the desire to spit on others in overwhelming delight at the sensation of victory. Not an admirable impulse to be sure, but an ancient one. By their fruits ye shall know them.
So that’s the original post from four years ago. In 2012 I’d like to add that this time the crowing is widespread not just in the blogosphere and comments sections, but among pundits on the left. The nasty campaign run by Obama in 2012 has certainly not had the effect of tempering pettiness and snark on the left; au contraire.
What’s more, in 2008 the left wasn’t sure how things would pan out for them, or whether Obama would be successful and win a second term. Now they know that it’s not necessary to be “successful” in the usual sense—for example, improving the economy—for the left to win. They believe they’re in the driver’s seat permanently.
That’s the source of their unbridled glee in 2012. This time around, they believe they’ll have all the time in the world.
Perhaps they’re right, perhaps not. Demographics favor them, it’s true. But black swans have a way of swimming into view when you least expect them.
Veterans Day
[NOTE: This is a slightly-edited repost of an article originally written in 2005.]
Yes, indeed, I am that old—old enough to very vaguely remember when Veterans Day was called Armistice Day, or at least to imagine that I do. The change in names occurred in 1954, when I was very small, in order to accommodate World War II and its veterans.
Since then, the original name has largely fallen out of use—although it remains, like a vestigial organ, in the timing of the holiday: November 11th, which commemorates the day the WWI armistice was signed (eleventh hour, eleventh day, eleventh month).
I’m also old enough–and had a teacher ancient enough—to have been forced to memorize that old chestnut “In Flanders Fields” in fifth grade—although without being given any historical context for it. I think at the time I assumed it was about World War II, since as far as I knew that was the only real war.
You can find the story of the poem here. It was written by a Canadian doctor who served in the European theater (there is no separate URL for the discussion of the poem, but you should click on the “John McCrae´s Poppies in Flander’s Fields” link). It’s not great poetry in the poetic sense (that’s my opinion, anyway), but it was great propaganda to encourage America’s entry into what was known at the time as the Great War.
The poem’s first line “In Flanders fields the poppies blow” introduces the famous flower that later became the symbol of Armistice—and later, Veterans—Day. Why the poppy?
Wild poppies flower when other plants in their direct neighbourhood are dead. Their seeds can lie on the ground for years and years, but only when there are no more competing flowers or shrubs in the vicinity (for instance when someone firmly roots up the ground), these seeds will sprout.
There was enough rooted up soil on the battlefield of the Western Front; in fact the whole front consisted of churned up soil. So in May 1915, when McCrae wrote his poem, around him bloodred poppies blossomed like no one had ever seen before.
But in this poem the poppy plays one more role. The poppy is known as a symbol of sleep. The last line We shall not sleep, though poppies grow / In Flanders fields might point to this fact. Some kinds of poppies are used to derive opium from, from which morphine is made. Morphine is one of the strongest painkillers and was often used to put a wounded soldier to sleep. Sometimes medical doctors used it in a higher dose to put the incurable wounded out of their misery.
Now a day to honor those who have served in our wars, Veterans Day has an interesting history in its original Armistice Day incarnation. It was actually established as a day dedicated to world peace, back in the early post-WWI year of 1926, when it was still possible to believe that WWI had been the war fought to end all wars.
The original proclamation establishing Armistice Day as a holiday read as follows:
Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and
Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and
Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.
After the carnage of World War II, of course, the earlier hope that peaceful relations among nations would not be severed had long been extinguished. By the time I was a young child, a weary nation sought to honor those who had fought in all of its wars in order to secure the peace that followed—even if each peace was only a temporary one.
And isn’t an armistice a strange (although understandable) sort of hybrid, after all; a decision to lay down arms without anything really having been resolved? Think about the recent wars that have ended through armistice: WWI, which segued almost inexorably into WWII; the 1948 war following the partition of Palestine; the Korean War; and the Gulf War. All of these conflicts exploded again into violence—or have continually threatened to ever since.
So this Veterans/Armistice Day, let’s join in saluting and honoring those who have fought for our country. The hope that some day war will not be necessary is a laudable one—and those who fight wars hold it, too. But that day has not yet arrived—and, realistically but sadly, perhaps it never will.
Dover Beach
I’ve been thinking about this poem lately. It’s really a bleak work (and very modern, despite the year it was written, which was probably around 1851). The subject is the loss of faith. Not a personal loss of faith, but a societal one: Faith. I think the poem can be applied to other related things, too, that have been lost: the values that once held us together as a society and a culture, perhaps?
“Dover Beach” is one of those poems that’s at least somewhat familiar to many people who don’t ordinarily read poetry. YouTube has a surprising number of versions. Here are two I thought to be interesting, for different reasons (I would say “enjoy,” but I’m not sure that’s exactly the right word):
Lessons learned from this election
The postmortems will be continuing for quite some time, as thoughts and impressions percolate. Some things that come to me right now:
(1) The Obama crew are light-years ahead of the Republicans in technology, and this has to be rectified. A good example is ORCA vs. the extraordinary sophistication of this sort of operation, there’s no question there’s a gap the size of the Grand Canyon.
(2) This election has undermined the reputation of a lot of pundits on the right who confidently predicted a Romney victory, sometimes even a large one. What were George Will and Michael Barone (to name just two of many) thinking? I find it hard to give them any credence now when they say things like “cheer up,” when they’ve been proven not to have had their fingers on the pulse of anything except their own hopes.
(3) It’s important to have more respect for polls. They were right. What’s more, they’re usually right, 1948 excepted. There are a lot of legends told about polls, and a lot of people don’t trust them (and of course some polls are more reliable than others), but the average of polls is usually pretty much on the money. I learned this before the election when I did my own historical research on polls, and it’s the reason I said that, unless the lowering of the response rate in recent polls has somehow skewed the results, they are probably valid. Discounting ones whose results we don’t like, and calling them skewed and faked and biased is nice for morale, but it’s misleading. Perhaps it even creates a false sense of security that made some people think they didn’t need to get out and vote.
(4) Obama knew he never had to appeal to the middle, and he didn’t even try. He merely had to alternately scare and bribe his base into turning out.
(5) There are more low-information voters than I ever thought; I believe their numbers are increasing. Politics: so boring, when there’s bread and circuses to attend to.
(6) We ignore the advantage of incumbency at our peril. Just because conservatives think Obama has been a profoundly incompetent and even destructive president doesn’t mean that perception is at all widely shared. He’s the president, and that counts for something—perhaps a lot, actually:
I was thinking about the point I made earlier ”“ incumbent presidents’ attempts to win re-election. Starting with McKinley in 1896, every incumbent who sought re-election won except for four: Taft; Hoover; Ford; Carter; and George H.W. Bush. All but Hoover faced a strong primary challenge (TR in 1912; Ronald Reagan in 1976; Ted Kennedy in 1980; and Pat Buchanan in 1992) and three of the four faced a serious general election third party challenge (TR in 1912; John Anderson in 1980; and Ross Perot in 1992).
Hoover may be an outlier, but his situation is unique because of the Great Depression. Given this history, I wonder whether people should stop all the second-guessing about what happened this time: Mitt Romney had to overcome a difficult primary battle and unite a divided Republican Party, and he faced a united Democratic Party and a media that loves President Obama. It’s not surprising that the incumbent won.
A few more miscellaneous thoughts—a lot of people on the right thought that Obama would have difficulty holding his base. But in retrospect I wonder why they thought so: just because his base isn’t totally satisfied with him? They’re a darn sight happier with him than they were with Mitt Romney, that’s for sure, and he made certain they hated and /or were scared of Romney. I saw that happen even among my friends.
I wonder whether other, less charismatic, less hypnotic, less clever politicians than Obama could have pulled off the same thing, even with the demographics the same as they are now. I have always said Barack Obama is smart, or clever, or whatever you want to call it, especially about politics. He’s also unscrupulous. That turned out to be a winning combination.
More theories on the Petraeus resignation
Petraeus resigns
He says it’s because he cheated on his wife.
But he was due to testify on Benghazi in six days, and now he won’t, at least not immediately (apparently they could still subpoena him later).
This smells exceedingly fishy. I have a bunch of theories, but don’t know if any of them are right. And I have a question: why would an extramarital affair be grounds for resignation? Since he’s head of the CIA—was it with a spy? (That’s a joke—I think). And he can’t be blackmailed if he’s already fessed up, can he?
And I’m sure it’s just a sheer coincidence that all of this is coming out right after the election.
UPDATE 5:56 PM: Is this true? Dunno, but it contains several unintentional points of humor [emphasis mine]:
The woman with whom Gen. David Petraeus was having an affair is Paula Broadwell, the author of a recent hagiographic book about him, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus…
It had long been rumored that something was going on between Petraeus and Broadwell. Her book, co-written with Vernon Loeb, is widely regarded as a valentine to the general. When she was embedded with him in Afghanistan, they went on frequent 5-mile runs together.
Broadwell is quite an attractive woman, by the way. More here. She appears to be in her late 30s. Petaeus is sixty (his birthday was the day after Election Day).
And this, from a comment at Ace’s:
More importantly – our CIA Director can’t even pull off an affair.
UPDATE 7:30 PM: and is there anybody—and I mean anybody—on the face of the earth who thinks the timing is coincidental? Petreaus had a small window of opportunity to get this in. It had to be after the election (although preferably not the day after), but before the slated testimony. Not many degrees of freedom there.
UPDATE: 10:46 PM: Paul Mirengoff offers some theories:
…[T]he confession could have been an attempt to preempt the theory that his resignation is Benghazigate related ”” it provides an alternative explanation. Second, the confession eliminates the opportunity for others (such as folks in the White House) to try to influence his future conduct, including potential statements and/or testimony about Benghazi (his departure from the CIA doesn’t preclude Congress from having him testify)…
JOHN adds: …[I]t is possible that the Obama administration has been blackmailing Petraeus to make him join in their deceptions about Benghazi. He may have announced the affair to eliminate any further possibility of blackmail, with the intention of telling the truth now that he has resigned from the administration. I think that is highly unlikely, but it seems to fit the facts that we know reasonably well.
PAUL adds: Yes. Petraeus might have admitted publicly to the extramarital affair because he knew its existence would be revealed in any case. However, it’s unlikely that anyone who wanted him to resign would have revealed this information once he, in fact, resigned. Perhaps someone wanted him to remain as head of the CIA, but in a compromised position, and Petraeus was unwilling to do so.
Gluten free-for-all
It used to be that only the rare person with celiac disease had to eat a gluten-free diet. But lately it’s become all the rage to be sensitive to the stuff.
Now, I suppose some people are. And if they feel better without eating gluten, who am I to tell them to eat it?
But these things have taken on a faddish nature, haven’t they? For example, the other day I saw an ad on TV for gluten-free dog food.
Yes, gluten-free dog food has undergone a similar proliferation to the human kind. Who knew?
And for the especially paranoid among you, here’s a video showing you how to test your dog’s gluten-free dog food to see if some gluten has unaccountably snuck in. I kid you not:
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in’t.
For those of you who want an election analysis that’s not so pessimistic…
Also, although this is unrelated to the above, I can’t figure out where else to put it. It’s a fascinating article about Obama’s highly sophisticated effort to reach and persuade potential supporters. The GOP seems to be bringing a knife to a gun fight in this regard.
The missing Republican vote
Here’s my theory about the missing two million (or whatever it turns out to be) McCain 2008 voters: it represents mostly blue-collar men and women who were turned off by Romney’s rich-elitist-Bain persona and decided to stay home. In that regard, Obama’s attack ads not only affected swing voters but conservatives and Republicans as well.
Yes, there were also libertarians who sat it out or voted for Johnson. There were also those who hate both parties and have vowed “never again another “establishment Republican,” as well as those who think if they hasten the financial apocalypse it will bring on a brighter conservative future. But I think that when the smoke clears we’ll find out that the bulk of the stay-at-homes were as I have said. That’s my hunch.
The blame game…
…is a losing one.
I remember my sinking feeling when, during the run-in to the 2012 campaign, each person I thought had a chance to win refused to run, until all of them had been eliminated from the race. Never mind who they were; my list of good candidates would probably have been different from yours, anyway. Let’s just say that for me, Mitt Romney was not among them. The point is that when the slate shaped up, and the Republican debates begin, I was stunned at what a weak field it was.
That’s not to say they were weak people. Each had many admirable traits, each had strengths. But it was pretty clear that all of them would have big problems beating Obama, who inexplicably remained popular and charismatic (that is, popular enough, and charismatic enough).
I thought Romney was the best prospect of the bunch. Still do. Unfortunately, he had flaws: somewhat wooden, not good at articulating conservative principles, mega-rich white guy, Bain history, label of flip-flopper, and even his extraordinary handsomeness which bordered on the unreal.
I also knew (and everybody knew) that whoever was the eventual nominee would be the subject of a relentless attack machine the likes of which we’ve hardly ever seen before in our lifetimes in this country—unless you count what was mounted against Sarah Palin in 2008. That was the incredibly successful template. The details would be different—because each candidate’s vulnerabilities are different—but the strategy would be the same: “Kill Mitt”—or “Kill Sarah,” or “Kill” whomever the nominee would be.
It worked. For example, unmarried women became deathly afraid that Republicans would take away their contraceptive rights (and by the way, Limbaugh’s attack on Sarah Fluke didn’t help the Republican cause any in that regard, although he’s a free agent and not a party representative). It also worked (mostly, the Bain and elitist stuff) to depress the working class Republican vote in swing states like Ohio that could have put Mitt over the top.
Romney tried to counter the attacks, but it was too little, too late. I’m not at all sure, however, that anything would have helped. When a campaign is willing to get as dirty as Obama’s was willing to get, as well as to lie, and especially when the MSM backs that campaign up, it’s extraordinarily difficult to fight back without seeming mean yourself. That’s especially hard when fighting a sitting president with 50% approval.
There’s a great quote attributed to LBJ, a man who knew an awful lot about politics:
Legend has it that LBJ, in one of his early congressional campaigns, told one of his aides to spread the story that Johnson’s opponent f***ed pigs. The aide responded “Christ, Lyndon, we can’t call the guy a pigf***er. It isn’t true.” To which LBJ supposedly replied “Of course it ain’t true, but I want to make the son-of-a-bitch deny it.”
So even fighting back against attacks by denying them, and explaining the truth, tends to give them legs. When an opponent is willing to say anything to destroy you (including that you helped someone to die of cancer in some circuitous way), then you’re already in trouble. Romney actually fought back against some of this stuff, but it was more or less like a game of whack-a-mole that never ended, and the cumulative effect was to weaken him.
But don’t kid yourself—they would have had a field day with any of these candidates, just in different ways. We can’t wait around for the perfect candidate to present him/herself. Not going to happen. So I’m asking you to stop the incrimination and blaming, because the other side feasts on the petty and counterproductive squabbling we’ve been having among ourselves since Tuesday. That doesn’t mean criticism is off limits—criticism is encouraged. What went wrong? How could it go right next time? It’s solutions we’re after, not divisiveness.
Of course, we could come up with great solutions and suggestions here, and that doesn’t mean anyone will take them up next time. But word spreads, and there are ways to be heard if an idea is good enough.
Some practical suggestions…
[ADDENDUM: Here’s another.]