When will politicians learn…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that Facebook and Twitter and all that internet stuff constitutes a public record? Tim Horrigan, the second New Hampshire state public figure in the Democratic Party to publicly joke about Sarah Palin dying in a plane crash, has tendered his resignation from the NH State House of Representatives as a result of criticism he received for his posting.

Horrigan’s sentiments actually weren’t so over-the-top, especially as far as Palin-bashing goes (“Just for the record, I don’t wish Sarah Palin dead… but not merely for compassionate reasons. I also want her to live because a living Sarah Palin is less dangerous than a dead one. Her rise to the status of Head Tea Partier had nothing to do with anything she ever said, did or accomplished— but as long as she lives she might be able to say or do things which could serve as a moderating influence. And she also might commit a gaffe bad enough to shock her followers, though that is unlikely. Unless of course she endorses Obama for President in 2012.”)

Compared to the sentiments of his fellow New Hampshire Democrat Keith Halloran on the same subject, who is running for the NH House, Horrigan’s words were mild. Here’s what Halloran had written on his Facebook page after the death of Ted Stevens:

Just wish Sarah and Levy [sic] were on board.

Both Horrigan and Halloran (sounds like a law firm to me) have apologized—but not after Halloran called objections to his remarks “just a tempest in their Tea Pot.”

Har de har har har, as adolescent boys used to say back in my youth. And that’s about the level on which these guys (and so many others these days) are operating.

[NOTE: Until now I was unfamiliar with Tim Horrigan, but shortly after his 2008 campaign he described himself as a graduate of Obama’s alma mater, Columbia, and as a “liberal Democrat…one of those liberal Democrats who believes that the liberalism is the truest form of conservatism.” If you can understand that, more power to you. He also notes that he was elected in September of 2008 to the state House in a very low-turnout election with no Republican opposition. It occurs to me that we all should pay more attention to such local contests.]

Race is everything, saith the left

The New Neo Posted on by

The following is quite a comment, gleaned from a thread at the New Republic, and written by “12alainu.” I highlight it here because it is a good example of the persistence on the left of the reductionist racialist explanation for everything conservative and/or Republican (from 8/11/2010 at 9:36am):

Yes it was the President and his party’s profound political stupidity to delude themselves into believing that Obama’s election in 2008 meant that there had been realignment in political philosophy of the American people. The realignment was suppose to have been brought about by working class white men changing their minds about loathing the Negro (except when they are on a basketball court or football field); and by the supposed emergence of a post race-hating white youth into the electorate in states like North Carolina and Virginia. This belief was the sheerest fantasy.

But ultimately, it was/is the President and his Party’s failure to push through a change in the economic climate (a simple failure in political strength and courage) which left the President groveling at the feet of Congressional Republicans who despise him; begging them to embrace his and his Party’s economic philosophy and programmatic agenda.

From the outset Republicans were only interested in destroying this President and his Party. And they knew the strategy which would achieve their purpose. They also correctly understood that failure to “cooperate” with this President and his party would never be politically costly. Obama never had that kind of relationship with the American people. If the American people were or are asked to believe either the Negro in the White House, his Party, or the Republican opposition to him over any issue of national policy, when they, middle and lower middle class whites are threatened; they will never go with the Negro. It’s that simple.

Does the commenter actually believe this claptrap? Perhaps. Perhaps he/she is just that simple.

Or perhaps it is being relentlessly put out there because this is still seen as some sort of winning argument. Whichever it is, anyone who actually believed that the election of Barack Obama as president would get the American people off the racial hook has been proven sadly and deeply mistaken.

Gibbs, Obama, and the left

The New Neo Posted on by

I notice that Robert Gibbs hasn’t done the full mea culpa for his criticism of the “professional left” the other day. In his latest encounter with the press, he lets us know why:

“[Q]What do you say to progressives who, on reading your comments yesterday, say, ‘Well, if that’s their attitude, I’m staying home in November’?”

[A]”I don’t think they will,” Gibbs said.

I beg to differ; I think that quite a few are angry enough to stay home.

Gibbs goes on to offend them further by stating he meant what he said when he made his original remarks: given the opportunity to claim he had his foot in his mouth and didn’t mean them, he instead says, “I think I have both my feet firmly planted on the floor.”

This is unequivocal: like Horton, Gibbs meant what he said and he said what he meant (although he’s not exactly faithful, 100%—except perhaps to Obama). If Obama cares about what happens in 2010, though, he ought to nip this message in the bud and tell Gibbs to eat crow.

But he’s not doing that. Perhaps Obama really does believe that the left has no place else to go and will still come out in droves for him, this November and then again in 2012.

Or perhaps he doesn’t care anymore; perhaps he’s tired of this whole president gig.

Or perhaps he has another electoral plan, as the more conspiratorial among us keep insisting.

Of one thing I’m pretty sure, however, which is that Gibbs was lying during the following exchange:

“Have you talked to the president about it?” Reid persisted.

“We haven’t.”

And if he’s telling the truth and they actually haven’t discussed it, this is incompetence on the part of Obama. He needs the left, and insulting them makes no sense at all.

But my strong suspicion is that not only have they discussed it, but they discussed it ahead of time. Gibbs is hardly a rogue operator. Perhaps behind the scenes there are now communications being sent to the left of a wink-wink strategy, an explanation that this is happening because Obama must appear to disassociate himself from them in order to woo the middle.

But if so, I doubt the left will buy it anymore, because he’s alienated them fairly deeply, even before the Gibbs remark (after all, Gibbs was responding to the fact that they were critical of Obama in the first place). And as for Obama wooing the middle, I believe (and continue to hope) that it’s too little, too late.

The bottom line is that almost nobody really trusts Obama any more—not the right (which never did), not the middle (which used to but has learned not to), and now a not-insignificant number on the left.

And by the way, nobody who dislikes Gibbs (and that’s just about everybody except Obama) should sit on a hot stove till Gibbs is fired. Gibbs and Obama are very close, and Gibbs is his surrogate and one of his alter egos.

Miscegenation laws and Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The New Neo Posted on by

I’d like to tackle this question raised by a commenter at the law blog Volokh:

…[H]ow is opposing legalization of same-sex marriage today different from opposing the legalization of interracial marriage back [in the 1960s in the Loving vs Virginia case]?

For one thing, Proposition 8 didn’t establish criminal penalties for same-sex marriage, like the miscegenation laws did. It merely affirmed the virtually universal definition in this country of marriage as being between one man one woman.

The anti-miscegenation laws in this country, on the other hand, were spotty and not at all universal, although they were very prevalent in the Southern states and also were in some northern ones (seven of the thirteen colonies had them). They also established criminal penalties for their violation. But many states in the north that originally did have such laws repealed them fairly early (for example, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1843), and Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the federal District of Columbia never passed miscegenation laws at all.

The ban against interracial marriage was never universally accepted—not anywhere near it (look at Othello and Desdemona, for example—although come to think of it, that came to a bad end). And even in the states where anti-miscegenation laws existed until the modern era, enforcement was intermittent and episodic, indicating a back-and-forth tendency:

Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina and Alabama legalized interracial marriage for some years during the Reconstruction period. Anti-miscegenation laws rested unenforced, were overturned by courts or repealed by the state government (in Arkansas and Louisiana). However, after conservative white Democrats took power in the South during Redemption, anti-miscegenation laws were once more enforced…

So there is a very different sort of social and cultural record for anti-miscegenation laws as compared to same sex marriage, which until recently didn’t even require a law against it, so widely accepted and universal was the idea that marriage was only possible between opposite sexes.

The court in Loving v. Virginia found miscegenation laws unconstitutional because they banned a basic right (marriage) on the basis of the race of the spouses. Should that right be extended to same-sex marriage? I am in agreement with the decision of the NY Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006), in which that court:

…rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:

“[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. […] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.”

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, however, that’s exactly what Judge Walker did.

I am, however in favor of leaving the issue of same-sex marriage to the states and taking it out of the hands of the federal government. The Constitution is silent on the subject of sexual orientation. But if the American people ultimately decide, state by state, to allow same sex marriage, then so be it.

Hiroshima revisionism

The New Neo Posted on by

August 6th was the 65th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and I recycled this piece for the occasion. It ended with these words:

It’s much harder to convince a WWII vet that Hiroshima was an unnecessary war crime than it is to convince a young person of same; the former not only has the context, he has own personal memories of the context. But propagandists are not just interested in changing opinions in the present, they’re interested in history and the future.

Well, it just so happens that the latest Rasmussen poll asked some questions that reflect on whether the America-blaming revisionists have finally managed to convince the majority of the American public that we were the villains. The answer is still “no.” Here are the relevant results:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans continue to believe that the 1945 decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good one. Sixty-eight percent (68%) believe it saved a lot of American lives and just 20% think the U.S. should apologize for the bombing.

[NOTE: Oh, and Obama? The percentage of respondents who “strongly approve” of his presidential performance is now at 24%, while his “strongly disapprove” tally is 46%.]

Purists, changers, and elections

The New Neo Posted on by

In this recent post, I highlighted some WaPo comments from a guy who calls himself “sayoung809132001,” who claims to be a former Democrat union man from Michigan who got laid off and is currently unemployed. The whole experience has led him to have a road to Damascus moment in which his lifelong allegiance to the Democratic Party has ended, and he’s looking to vote for candidates with practical suggestions and business experience.

That summary of mine doesn’t even begin to do justice to the fervor and eloquence of the man; I suggest you go to the original post and read it if you haven’t already (and for those who had trouble with the paragraphing and syntax, here’s a revised and more readable version).

However, some of the commenters on my post were very critical of “sayoung.” For example, commenter “Ilion” wrote:

Unfortunatly, it’s clear that he doesn’t really understand ”¦ and he’ll fall for the Hero on a White Horse who rides into town.

And commenter Mike Mc. responds to some more notes from sayoung by saying:

The guy is a jackass. He wants Obama to give him a job.

Right there is the exact problem with Democrats. They are rotten people.

It goes on (for example, commenter “Tim P” continues with more here, “Baklava” adds more here, and “ghost707” here).

Other commenters join the discussion with various defenses of sayoung (see this and this, for example).

I come down on the side of the defenders. Rage at people like the guy I’ve spotlighted in that post may feel good, but is counterproductive and verges on the vengeful.

As a changer myself, I view it quite differently. Every person who sees more clearly than he/she did the day before is a good thing, and to be welcomed. Reasoned argument will persuade some of further things that seem reasonable to them””not spitting at them for former crimes, or making assumptions about what they think and feel now, and how far they still are from agreeing with you. These people are not the enemy.

Sayoung’s change is relatively recent. So don’t expect it to be complete, or to perfectly toe the conservative line in terms of a well-thought-out theoretical conservative basis for his viewpoints.

In addition—although it’s true that some of the statements he made in this particular excerpt (not featured in my original post) sound as though his vote can be bought by Obama with promises of jobs, that’s not the main thrust of the bulk of his comments at all.

Most of the time, he is speaking of voting for the people most likely to effect reasonable, non-pie-in-the-sky, practical changes that will help improve the business climate in general in the hard-hit state of Michigan, not just for himself or his relatives in particular (although of course the latter would be nice, too). The guy is not looking for a handout, but instead for business-friendly policies from someone running for election who knows something about business.

If you care to read more by sayoung see this, which includes a couple of his other comments at the WaPo. One of them details some of the work he’s done to earn some spare change in the meantime, while he waits for things to improve. His efforts also included re-locating to another state for another job, which then folded as well. Sayoung is interested in getting relief for systemic unemployment in his area, due to policies (including union activism, which he says is part of the problem) that have blighted economic opportunities in the region as a whole.

But this really isn’t about sayoung himself—who he is, what he’s saying, or whether he’s on the up and up. It’s about an attitude I’ve seen over and over among some conservatives about how big or how small their tent will be.

When sayoung talks about Republicans reaching out to the union people in Michigan, it’s because Republicans campaigning in Michigan must reach out to the union people, who constitute a huge number of the voters in that state. Those Republicans would be idiots not to do so. These are the people whose flip from a Democrat to a Republican vote will be necessary to effect a win in that state.

Purist and punitive sentiments towards those people are unhelpful and impractical. If that’s the attitude conservatives and/or Republicans have, they will continue to lose elections. And although perhaps some day a conservative third party may take hold, we are talking about an election that is going to be happening in less than three months—one of the most important in our lifetimes, if not the most important—and it’s going to be between Democrats and Republicans. The race does not go to the purest.

Gibbs: leftist Obama critics should pipe down…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and stop asking for too much change too fast. After all, we’re dancing as fast as we can.

Obama spokesman Gibbs criticizes the left for criticizing Obama too much for not doing enough.

And not just the left, either: the “professional left,” which is not too happy with Gibbs’s statement. Gibbs has tried to staunch the bleating on the left in reaction what he now calls his “inartful” comments, which he now explains were merely a call for unity:

Democrats, [Gibbs said], “me included,” need to “stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we’ve come too far to turn back now.”

And if Democrats continue to hold Congress in 2010, you can be sure they’ll go farther. Quite a bit farther. And there may be no turning back.