Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Politics, Current Events, and Culture’ Category

A roundup of a few interesting things from the internet this week.

Great pieces by establishment conservatives George Will and Charles Krauthammer pointing out the increasingly wide gap between Obama’s rhetoric of post-partisanship and his narrowly partisan agenda.

A scathing editorial by Robert Samuelson on Obama’s phony economics agenda.

A nice tribute to one of my favorite writers, Steve Sailer, by John Derbyshire.

An interesting power point from Natick Labs that shows the Army’s dubious universal pattern was actually a poor performer in tests.  The best performer looked a lot like old Rhodesian camouflage and, like the earth around us, was comprised of greens, tans, and browns.  It is a minor scandal that the Army has made its soldiers appear worse in garrison and endangered them in the field with its new Army Combat Uniform.  Since so many soldiers are now slogging it out like their fathers and grandfathers on Afghan hills, it’s a decision worthy of revisiting by the DoD.

South of the border, things seem to be really melting down.  It’s kind of pathetic that Obama thinks we can have an unsecured border with Mexico and is considering sending in the military to stop narco-terrorists only, as if a border without controls can easily separate illegal aliens seeking work at car washes and restaurants and illegal aliens seeking work as pimps and drug dealers.  Without a secure border, the un-uniformed, un-named, disorganized, and visually indistinguishable criminal element from Mexico will continue to flow into the US.

I was never terribly impressed with the GOP since Bush took the helm.  Michael Steele is not helping things. More of the same is a recipe for disaster:  both politically and, if we somehow manage electoral success, on policy.  The gap between concerns of the rank and file–the economy, culture, immigration, national security, and moral decline–and the guilt-ridden, beltway rhetoric of the leadership is quite remarkable.

Dick Cheney said this morning that Obama’s policies make America less safe.  I, of course, said Bush’s border policies made America less safe, though Obama may even be worse on this score.  But so what if Cheney said this?  Isn’t this what criticism of another person’s national security policy always is saying implicitly?  One of the most dangerous developments in the media’s tone under Obama has been the idea that criticizing his policies–i.e., hoping they fail or saying they make us less safe–is out of bounds and unpatriotic.  If we can’t criticize Obama without being called racist, and we can’t criticize his policies without being unpatriotic, what is left other than blind submission?

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Ross Douhat and Jeff Maximos had the following remarks on the peculiar kind of meritocracy at work at both the Ivies and Wall Street, a new model of leader combines great intellect with a great sense of entitlement, and a very meager sense of civilizational responsibility.

Ross begins:

I don’t often plug my first book, Privilege, but I think it’s worth mentioning here because when you read about how the American leadership class acquitted itself at Citibank, or on Wall Street in general, I think you can see the dark side of meritocracy at work – the same dark side that shadows an instititution like Harvard, where a job in investment banking became, for a time, the summum bonum of meritocratic life. The mistakes that our elites made, and that led us to this pass, have their roots in flaws common to all elites, in all times and places – hubris, arrogance, insulation from the costs of their decisions, and so forth. But they also have their roots in flaws that I think are somewhat more particular to this elite, and this time and place. Flaws like an overweening faith in technology’s capacity to master contingency, a widespread assumption that the future doesn’t have much to learn from the past, and above all a peculiar combination of smartest-guys-in-the-room entitlement (don’t worry, we deserve to be moving millions of dollars around on the basis of totally speculative models, because we got really high SAT scores) and ferocious, grasping competitiveness (because making ten million dollars isn’t enough if somebody else from your Ivy League class is making more!). It’s a combination, at its worst, that marries the kind of vaulting, religion-of-success ambitions (and attendant status anxieties) that you’d expect from a self-made man to the obnoxious entitlement you’d expect from a to-the-manor-born elite – without the sense of proportion and limits, of the possibility of tragedy and the inevitability of human fallibility, that a real self-made man would presumably gain from starting life at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder (as opposed to the upper-middle class, where most meritocrats starts) … and without, as well, the sense of history, duty, self-restraint, noblesse oblige and so forth that the old aristocrats were supposed to aspire to.

Jeff adds:

Bereft of a sense of tragedy and their own finitude, and possessed of no intuition that they ought to impose upon themselves the discipline of self-limitation, both for the good of our common society and for the good of their souls, and eschewing obligations to their ‘inferiors’, most of our meritocrats embody the vices of the nouveau riches and the ancien regime without any of the counterbalancing virtues. They have been the worst of both worlds, sort of like liberaltarians celebrating the most loathsome excesses of the culture while hymning the most calamitous excesses of creative destruction.

I think both of these observations are useful. I realized in criticizing Bush’s crony capitalism coupled with my later suggestion that Wall Street would do well to return to the WASPy values of understatedness, modesty, and a strongly developed sense of noblesse oblige that there is a tension if not an outright contradiction between these two ideas. After all, the kind of technocratic efficiency by which talent from all races, countries, and parts of the globe is channeled to a handful of institutions is quite unlike the era of the “Gentleman’s ‘”C” and the Country Club. There is a difference, though. At the realm of law and policy, things should be neutral and this was an important Anglo-American ideal that the Rockefellers, Morgans, and other so-called Robber Barons embraced, even as they cultivated themselves into a kind of self-conscious American aristocracy in the late 19th Century. The American elite did not enshrine itself with legal privileges, government largesse, and the kind of “free for all” that elites in Latin America induldged.  The self-respect of the American WASP elite depended in part upon its accessibility to outsiders who conformed to the elite’s standards. Self-limitation and ostracism coupled with neutral rules defined the mainstream of American business culture well into the 1970s–think of the “IBM Uniform”–but this culture also demanded some regard for community, loyalty, patriotism, and civilizational leadership almost entirely absent on the Wall Street. Ross Perot spent some of his enormous sums of wealth in the early 1980s to find and rescue POWs in Southeast Asia.  It’s hard to imagine this kind of eccentric and selfless act from anyone on today’s Wall Street, let alone something more mundane like joining the Kiwanis or coaching a soccer team.

Bush straddles the new meritocracy and the old elite. He is after all a Harvard MBA, but he stands in sharp contrast to his father. Like his father, he’s not particularly ideological. But unlike his father, he has little sense of propriety, as evidenced by crude self-interested acts like threatening vetos over an oil sheikdom’s right to run a U.S. port, his indifference to the working class’s vulnerability to immigration, or his excessive concern for loyalty. In the latter sense, he is a unlike the new Wall Street elite, who instead embrace a set of facially neutral rules that happen to benefit “guys like them.”  In this model, the more layered requirements of the old WASP elite are replaced solely with the sheepskins.  They believe the group in general–smart, Ivy educated, upper middle class in taste, not particularly brave or admirable–is entitled to rule the world, even though this would not necessarily be so for any particular individual among them. The idea that that group owed anything to the broader society or to God, however, is completely missing, and this is what seems to seperate them from the Henry Fords and John D. Rockefellers of yesteryear.

So Bush is a defective representative of traditional WASP values, holding on to his family’s power in a world where that class is in retreat–evidenced most dramatically by the rise of the out-of-nowhere Obama–without the counterbalancing effect of other stable, multigenerationally wealthy families that could, once upon a time, constrain even a President.

This new kind of elite built on a peculiar and very recent type of speculative activity will likely have a tough time justifying its power and wealth as the wheels come off. During the long Bull Market of 1982 to the present, one could reasonably conclude that the various financial players were allocating capital intelligently and responsibly through the miracle of markets, even though the details of any one instrument were arcane. After you learn about $60T in CDS obligations and monoline wrapped crap debt turning into AAA paper, it is all kind of hard to swallow. And the huge bonuses don’t make it any easier. The resentment and rage of the middle classes is building up. They feel, as they have felt at other times in history, that the basic contract has been broken to benefit the few at the expense of the many. If too many of these folks disappear and sink too soon, this is a recipe for political radicalism. As in the case of the ancien regime itself, decades of placidity can mask the potential for violent, sudden change. If it’s not Obama, it may be some other extreme on the flip side of his reign.

Read Full Post »

FBI agent, Samuel Hicks, was killed this week in Pittsburghwhile serving an arrest warrant in a botched drug raid.  He was 33.  After the agent knocked on the suspect’s door and announced his intention, the suspect apparently proceeded to flush his stash of cocaine down the toilet.  After the suspect didn’t answer, they were shot by the suspect’s wife when they came through the threshold.  The arrest went down using the “knock and announce” tactics and non-SWAT gear that libertarians have long asked for.

For years now libertarians have complained about “excessive force” in drug raids, including SWAT teams’ use of AR-15s and full body armor.  Even now, libertarians pretend that drug dealers’ sordid lives are equal in social value as those of FBI agents, blaming the FBI agents for their raid tactics rather than looking at the long string of criminal, illegal choices that led to the suspect’s position on the wrong end of a raid in the first place.  I wrote in an earlier entry–an adaptation of which was published in the Washington Post–that not only are police using less force today than in the past, but that the displays of potential force in a typical SWAT raid actually reduce violence compared to alternatives by encouraging submissive behavior by suspects.

The moral compass of libertarians is more than a little off course, and that is why they remain a fringe movement in America’s public life.  Even people that recognize police and the state need to be restrained by generous protections for civil liberties do not typically believe that the lifestyles of drug dealers are the reason why; instead, these rights are protected because criminals as a whole act as surrogates for other members of society who may have encounters with police.  Undeniable criminals’ civil liberties are respected because innocent people too may be arrested, not because accommodating crooks and allowing them to run wild is an end in itself.  The libertarians’ silence on the Hicks’ case as the facts have come out is noteworthy.  The pro-drug-dealer libertarians of the CATO Institute make a big show of every mistaken drug raid, while ignoring the many cases of brutal drug dealer violence against police and one another. Libertarians ultimately have a maudlin view of drug dealers, whose “natural rights” to deal crack are somehow being infringed.  This is of course a ridiculous position, that makes little account of the rule of law, and ends in the absurd equation of the moral status of violent, greedy drug dealers with that of sworn FBI agents enforcing our democratically enacted laws.

Update and Response:  Radley responded at length to my past, as have many commentators below. 

One line of argument raised by Radley and many commentators below is that these raids are unnecessary and suspects could be taken on the streets.  That may be true and safer in some instances, but I think this sets up a false dichotomy, and I believe some deference is owed to the experienced folks who have to make these decisions under conditions of uncertainty. 

Further, the question is not “no knock” raids versus “no raids at all.”  It’s “no knock raids” versus “knock and announce raids.” The older tradition of police work was one where suspects had a great deal more fear and thus respect for the police often involved knocking on the door and arresting them without much resistance.  This has changed; it’s not controversial to say criminals in general are somewhat more violent and less respectful of police than they were in, say, the 1950s.  Where a search warrant is involved, the home is where the evidence is.  If the suspect and home are not secured simultaneously, a conviction of someone even for a very violent offense may not happen. 

The safety tradeoffs of public arrests versus arrests at home are not obvious either.  Felony stops and high speed chases are both notoriously dangerous and endanger the community at large rather than limiting the collateral damage to the drug dealers and their associates (as well as the police, who must take some risks by necessity).   

It’s also been suggested that somehow this drug dealer’s wife was some innocent babe in the woods who only cared about protecting her children, as evidenced by the 9-11 call.  This paints a “snapshot” distorted picture of the suspect and his family.  Setting aside the possibility that the 9-11 call that Radley was so moved by was a ruse to drum up an alibi, news reports make it clear that she had expensive tastes and was arm-and-arm with her husband in his drug-dealing enterprise.  There is a chain of choices that led to this incident.  She could have left her man. She could have made an ultimatum and told him to stop dealing drugs.  But instead together they took the major risk that they would someday be raided over their drug dealing gig.  I’ll even concede that drug dealers run higher risks of “home invasion” robberies, but at the same time they also run the higher risk of police running warrants.  If someone busts into my house, I can be 99% sure it’s not the cops.  For a drug dealer, maybe it’s a 50-50 proposition.  So she can’t just claim complete innocence and surprise that people are busting through her door, and it says a lot about her that she’d put these kids in that position.  Home invasions of one sort or another are a risk of the “profession,” and if you tag a cop you should expect to go away a long time. 

This line of argument also risks absurdities.  It’s not clear why these concerns for suspects’ families should not apply in the case of super-violent criminals.  After all, the wives and kids aren’t the serial rapists or bank robbers, right?  I guess the people on the freeway or 7-11 parking lot should be put at risk instead. 

Finally, there is a persistent attempt to connect these raids exclusively with the drug war.  But this is not the case.  Warrants pre-exist the Nixon-era “War on Drugs.” Warrants are mentioned in the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.   In fact, in the recent past, these raids were undertaken with fewer civil liberties’ protections in a milieu of much higher police-on-citizen deadly violence.  Police tactics evolve, and the SWAT raid has the benefit of overwhelming a suspect and making him psychologically ill disposed to shoot at the cops in a desperate Alamo-style showdown. 

The real precipitating driver for the birth of SWAT teams and SWAT tactics were incidents like Charles Whitman’s murders at UT in the 60s and the persistent problem of barricaded suspects in armed robberies.  Once that capability is there, however, there is no reason it shouldn’t be used when practical. It’s obviously quite a bit safer for everyone involved to raid a house using a SWAT team as opposed to two plain clothes Narcotics officers using a Remington shotgun.  (Watch Serpico sometime to get a sense of the 70s warrant-service flavor.) 

I do think a lot of this may come down to optics.  After all, the statistics are not on Radley’s side.  He says, “And even if all of these raids went down exactly as planned, there’s the broader question of whether the image of armed men dressed as soldiers battering down American citizens’ doors some 40-50,000 per year, mostly for consensual crimes, is one that’s consistent with a free society.”  Pace Radley’s point, I find this imagery less disturbing than the imagery of police officers’ funerals.  It is appropriate that some risks are taken by police to preserve evidence while also protecting themselves, and in achieving those goals, we should be generous in our grant of means, equipment, and tactical discretion.

It seems elementary, but highly controversial among libertarians, that so long as a law exists, it should be enforced.  It would not be appropriate for police to decide not to enforce the drug laws, and, most important of all, there is not a hermetical seal between drug dealers and other criminals.  Recidivist drug dealers commit other crimes.  Other types of criminals deal and use drugs.  On balance, drug crimes permit violent and anti-social people to be locked up for a long time on a relatively easy-to-prove charge.  I don’t buy all these guys would be getting masters degrees if drugs were not criminalized.  There have always been rackets, and there have always been greedy, law-breaking people.  I’d rather they be convicted of an easily proved crime than run around pimping prostitutes or robbing banks or doing God knows what else that would be much harder to obtain convictions on if drugs were legal.

That said, I’ll concede that some good arguments exist to decriminalize certain drugs and reduce mandatory minimums.  But the issue of the law’s substance and the tactics used in its enforcement are distinct.  Other criminals whether thieves or child porn possessors or vandals could and should be subject to “no knock” warrants when necessary to preserve evidence and when, as here, it’s the safest way to protect the community at large in the arrest of the suspect.

Read Full Post »

2978558669_b78d7e9420_o

If America lurches towards dictatorship, it will be more with a whimper than a bang. We won’t need to fear secret police so much as the oppressiveness of mass conformity, social pressure, the siphoning of wealth, and the spread of “official” viewpoints. I realize Americans’ fears of one’s political opponents assuming dictatorial powers are a bit overwrought and overdone. Neither W, Bush Senior, Clinton, nor Reagan was in any real sense a potential dictator, even though all three were reviled and feared by many opponents. Nonetheless, with the perspective of time, we see that their imagery, styles, goals, and personalities were American through and through.

The times and the place create the leader, and our post-religious, meaning-starved society more than ever wants atonement, purpose, and passion. The Obama message to white and black alike has resonated.  To the former he promises forgiveness, to the latter, dignity and power.  But his style, his words, and the imagery of his campaign are all new, whether in the form of enormous adoring crowds or the creepy posters. Coupled with an existing economic crisis and the Bush administration expansion of executive power, Obama certainly could move us in a very bad direction from which it would be very difficult to return to ordinary, constitutionally limited government.  Some of the brakes we take for granted will be absent.  Obama can cry racism, for instance, in the casual, insinuating way he did in his primary campaign against Hillary Clinton.  Further, his supporters and his support is both intense and untethered to specific actions.  It is hard to imagine that Obama will be forced to deflect the kind of criticism Bush has been subjected to from the right. By 2004, Bush was widely treated by conservatives as a mere magistrate and widely defended simply as the lesser of two evils.

The best analog would probably be someone like the Four Term leader, FDR, who retained a cult-like level of respect long after his death among working class survivors of the Great Depression. In reading a collection of contemporary essays, I was struck by the prescience and continuing relevance of the following passage by Herbert Agar:

Our real danger is from people like the late Huey Long, or the amiable Doctor Townsend. If fascism comes to America, it will not come as the result of a comic-opera putsch in which Wall Street buys an ex-general of Marines to lead a march on Washington. It will come as it came to Europe, as a revolt of the lower middle class, of the people who want to be self-respecting proprietors, but who find themselves-dispossessed–proletarian in fact, but not in feeling. These people are easy game for the demagogue, for the man who will promise them the moon and promise it quickly, who will tell the desperate middle class the the problem of making them all kings, or all financially independent, is perfectly simple.

If the middle class is sufficiently desperate, it will vote the demagogue into power. And when the demagogue comes to power, he will find that his ‘age of plenty’ is not so easy to provide. At that point fascism is born. At that point the demagogue, threatened with a breakdown of the whole economic system, turns to the Lords and Masters whom he has been abusing, and makes a deal.  The demagogue stays in office and keeps the people quiet.  The Lords and Masters stay in power and run the economic systems just the way they ahve always wanted to run it.  The corporate State is monopoly-capitalism made safe, monopoliy capitalism with the whole power of society behind it.

The economic bailout rammed through Congress will give Obama and his future treasury secretary incredible leverage over every sector of the economy.  Apparently “helping” our basket case auto industry is now on the agenda, but everything will have a catch:  obeissance to whatever faddish idea Obama has about giving his constituents a fair deal, anti-free-market environmentalist extremism, and who knows what else.  The worst thing about this will be that Bush’s corporate welfare was always rightly labeled as such by genuine free market critics.  Obama will have his mass movement in his corner, denouncing critics as retrograde special interests and uncompassionate failures.  He’ll tie the passions of young people with the most small-minded and short-sighted indulgences in mercantalism.  Judging by the way he handled things in Chicago and on the campaign trail, don’t expect kid cloves from The One, especially when he’s pursuing bad policies that help the connected few at the expense of the many.

Read Full Post »

Bush adopted his “compassionate conservative” agenda on the theory that the harsh rhetoric and self-consciously anti-government conservatism of Gingrich’s “Contract with America” was unpopular and unlikely to win. There may be some truth to this. But, at the same time, Bush downplayed conservative positions on everything from abortion to affirmative action. He instead emphasized his support for No Child Left Behind, help for those suffering with AIDS in Africa, and an aggressively pursued, but ultimately liberal, neo-Wilsonian agenda of democratizing the Middle East.

Elections are funny inasmuch as we don’t know whether people voted for or against someone for any particular view or position they held. Each candidate always advances a grab bag of positions ranging, which many voters do not fully understand and upon which much of the campaign machinery is designed to put a positive spin. But if anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives can succeed in such liberal states as California, does this not suggest that the libertarians have it all wrong and the social piece of the traditional conservative coalition is not only popular but the most likely wedge with which to pry away socially conservative democratic voters. Instead in the 90s and now again, many of the professional pundits such as David Frum counsel that conservatism must abandon many of its “red meat” issues while also failing to fulfil its traditional role as the “tough medicine” slowing down or stopping profligate new entitlements. Instead of elections being referenda on gun control and gay marriage, we’ll instead have dueling neologisms such as “Compassionate Conservatism” and “Change We Can Believe In.” I doubt we’ll win any of those battles, not least because some of us at least don’t want to see the welfare state expand, nor do we have much use for “compassionate” conservatism other than as the punch-line for a joke.

Read Full Post »

I think it’s low down and pathetic that McCain’s operatives are blaming Palin for his loss.  If anything, she pumped him up.  Surely the proposed Lieberman pick would have been a complete flop.  McCain did better in the popular vote than I ever expected considering what an unpleasant mediocrity he was on the stump and considering how much he alienated conservatives with his aggressive attacks on immigration reformers.

Palin is hated because of who she is.  Like Mike Huckabee, she represents a populist appeal and rural way of life and value system that is absolutely terrifying for the “K Street Conservatives.”  The professional punditariat in Washington DC and New York are indifferent or hostile to everything that matters to their base, including abortion and gay marriage as well as gun control and immigration.  I don’t agree with everything from the populist wing, but I do share their concerns and their necessity as a group to a well balanced country, as I argued here earlier. 

Our elites are more out of touch than ever with these people. Their diagnosis of Bush Senior as “too conservative” in 1992 is why we ended up with a big government disaster with almost nothing to show for itself under the rubric of Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.”  To make Palin’s untutored instincts a symbol of the authentic conservatism of America’s interior ignores the real intellectuals–Tom Fleming, ISI, Vdare, the Von Mises Institute, Thomas Sowell–making intelligent and rigorous contributions to our understanding of culture and policy far away from the most prominent institutions of “conservative” opinion. 

Consider Andrew Sullivan.  He’s still obsessing over this threatening, fertile and religious woman.  And he’s lost all sense of proportion and reason, for example:  “The trouble is that Palin confuses what is settled reality and what is settled reality insider her own head. . . . 46 percent of the country was prepared to have this delusional whack-job as a potential president . . . . Give us the proof of Trig’s maternity now!”  It’s telling that a whack-job like this works at the Atlantic.

The soon-to-be-vicious conservative infighting about what to do next will chiefly be between the neoconservative right as represented by the coastal elite institutions that guided the Bush presidency and the anti-intellectual populist-nationalist institutions and people of the interior, the Huckabees, Palins, and Buchanans.  Of course, sometimes the elites are right as on Hariett Meirs or Bush’s penchant for cronyism.  But on the whole they’ve been a disaster both politically and on policies, whether immigration, Iraq, the economy, or the Bush presidency as a whole.

Read Full Post »

I thought Steve Sailer’s analysis of McCain’s loss was useful.  Some of the right’s best wedge issues–immigration, gun control, big government, and a bit surprisingly, gay marriage–were items which this faux maverick took great pleasure in bucking the GOP to the delight of his friends in the media.  He was a terrible campaigner with terrible ideas and a terrible presence and personality who  I am not the least bit surprised (nor terribly chagrined) to have seen lose.

Steven den Beste and Lawrence Auster both make a good case that there will be some positives of an Obama presidency, not least that he will be more required to appeal to Republicans and moderates than a McCain, who would have been demoralized by the prospect of defeating the history-making Obama candidacy.  I think for these reasons he’ll be less inclined to push for an irreversible amnesty, which has been Bush and McCain’s obsession for a number of years.  I do think national health care will be a major problem, and a hard to reverse one.  It will make our health care worse.  That said, I don’t think health and health care are always correlates; for a lot of reasons we probably spend far too much on health care as a society.  Government controls will add error to correct an error in the form of the existing tax-subsidy for health benefits.  But we’ll survive.  France and Sweden, though far from ideal, are not Bolivia.  Nor are we, yet.

We face many threats to our traditional way of life.  The mass culture is toxic.  The economy is unstable, ridden with debt, threatened by hyperinflation and mass disenchantment.  Related to these, we are more threatened by our continued addition of millions of less productive, low skill workers from the Third World into our increasingly generous society.   Between the issues of health care and immigration, the latter is more damaging and it has long been McCain’s passion.  Like Bush, his presidency would have led to far too many compromises by conservative critics, who would embarass themselves by making excuses for the globalist, big government managerial gobbeldy-gook of a McCain administration.  Obama at least will sharpen our focus and remind us that in the game of tribal politics, only the majority has engaged in unilateral disarmament.

I’ve talked to a number of Obama voters and was happily suprised to see that the cult-like enthusiasm seen on TV is shared by relatively few of them. They simply judged him the better of the two and feel he deserves a chance.  The intensity of the Obama-worshippers in Grant Park should be contrasted with these folks, some of whom entertained the hope that his presence might lead to more honest and realistic race relations and a revival of morale leading to improvements in the various social problems facing the black community.  Perhaps. 

It all remains to be seen what Obama will do, how he’ll govern, and whether he’ll be a centrist in the manner of Bill Clinton or a committed leftist who can finally advance the race-class-gender-justice policies that he fought for so passionately as a young man.  In either case, we need some sense of proportion as conservatives and as Americans. Even before and after LBJ, America was still America.  Its core values in tact.  They’ve slowly been sapped, transformed, and weakened, but they’re not altogether absent.  Among these, our civic rituals of peaceful transfers of power and respect for the office are valuable.  Our generosity, lack of narrow tribalism, and magnanimity as a people should not be dismissed too quickly by anyone.  And, even though the Obama presidency is worrisome and will likely at times be offensive, conservatives certainly should not induldge the kind of stupid hatred and conspiracy thinking that the Left spewed at Bush for the last eight years. 

I think the Obama presidency will likely be an unsuccessful one, beset by exagerrated hopes, missteps, the evils of party spirit, and Obama’s own hitherto unexamined leftism.  But it all remains to be seen, and there will be plenty enough time in the next four years for gnashing of teeth.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »