Commentary

The Unreasonables

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has an op-ed in which he accuses Democrats of opposing judges because of their religious beliefs. This is a position so easy to dismiss it's almost laughable. It's not private beliefs that cause Democrats concern, otherwise we would have never made Harry Reid or Tom Daschle party leaders. It is public beliefs: the fact that these nominees want to impose their religious opinions on other people. Of course, the Unreasonables are incapable of making this distinction. Theocons think that it is a violation of their rights for me to do what they don't like. They really need to take Political Science 101.

What Ideas?

Bull Moose thinks that the Democrats are focusing too much on structure and not enough on message. Now while there is some truth to what he is saying, I have to scratch my head when he says that the Republican revival in the 1970's was due not to their organization but their ideas. What ideas? Hating black people? Smearing the left as pacifists? Making up a ridiculous economic theory? Honestly folks, the only "idea" on the right was to harness the cultural/vietname backlash to the service of their very old agenda of destroying the New Deal. I really don't see that as an idea: it's more like smart strategy and ruthless demagogy.

The Primary Calendar

I have real reservations about the California plan (other than the fact that it's unrealistic), and even more about regional primaries (it is unrealistic, but has more problems), both discussed here. Look, I liked the old 1960-model of nominations, in which primaries were beauty contests and delegates were selected in party caucuses. I believe this strategy gives small-time candidates a chance and encourages broader participation. The problem is really the dominance of primaries. And we could reduce their influence by just restoring the old 2/3 rule at the convention and ending the obligation to vote for a particular candidate on the first ballot.

Hillary and Newt, sitting in a tree...

People have been wondering why Newt and Hillary are getting along. Look, it's no mystery to me. They both believe that the other is the only one they could defeat in a Presidential general election. It's like when right-wing Israelis cooperated with Hamas to destroy the peace process. Sometimes your biggest enemy is your most useful partner.

Where I disagree with liberals

This is a useful question from Pandagon: where do you disagree with liberal orthodoxy?

I am more interventionist/realistic on foreign policy. My position on China (it's a rising rival to U.S. power) is evidence of this - I liked Kagan's op-ed on this subject. I think U.S. power matters.

I am more to the right on immigration, which I'll talk about soon.

I am uneasy with technocratic solutions to problems. I think that D.C.-based policies are often the wrong way to go.

I don't look down on small town rural life. Sorry, but there is a negative stereotype at work here.

I think big deficits are immoral.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

Identity Politics

Chris Bowers has a good discussion on identity politics at MyDD. I would just like to add that identity politics is inherently conservative (which is why I never liked multiculturalism as a political movement). The entire right wing game is to get the lower classes fighting over symbolic issues so that they'll forget that the plantation owners are exploiting them. The only viable liberal vision is an integrationist one, because then people starting thinking about class issues. This is why the left is so strong in Europe and so weak here: more cultural homogeneity in the latter (historically, anyway). Don't just believe me: I got the idea from DuBois.