Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

They elected him, and can re-elect him if they want to, but I think a whole lot of Republicans want to get out of the hell that comes with this blundering, glassy-eyed loser. Rove seems to understand this (his numbers bear it out), and he even spoke to the WaPo yesterday about the charms of returning to Texas after the November elections. But you don't want to keep the Senate, of course, and you want to keep all the House seats you can, so you need a driven, optimistic campaigner at the head of the ticket. Brooks's rhetoric seems to be telling Bush to keep on trucking, even as it signals its own modest grip on reality.

I meant, of course, that you don't want to lose the Senate....my typist is Blind Desire.

Why do you keep pretending that it is a realistic option to replace W on the ticket? (I assume that's what you meant by "something constructive"). If Bush gets reelected, the only "constructive" thing that grown up repubicans can do is to try to improve the policy-making process in the whitehouse; or, rather, implement a policy-making process. If Bush is really a pupet of his advisors, maybe the RNC could pressure the advisors or something; maybe tell Rove to take a hike...

For a long time Brad has been asking when the Republican grownups are going to show up. I think that the evidence is overwhelming that there are NO grownups left in the GOP. The few so-called moderates, the Chafees, Collins' and Snowe's, are intimidated and very much working at the margins of the party. They would be much more effective and true to themselves if they switched like Jeffords. But they won't do it because they don't have the courage of their (apparent) convictions.
So let's stop hoping against hope and work as hard as we can to defeat Bush.

The best (and most reasoned and non-hysterical) explanation I've seen of what's happened to the GOP is John Judis' new piece in the New Republic: it's now been overwhelmingly taken over by the South, and depends on Southern support far more than it did under even Ronald Reagan (largely because of the results of the 1994 election). And the South's culture -- let's face it -- is still to a large degree depraved, still containing large elements (although slowly fading) of racism, religious bigotry and hatred of intellectualism, and economically more attracted to corporatist-type government support of big business than to economic libertarianism. (Christopher Caldwell has written about this before.)

Bush is, after all, this country's first genuine "Southern Republican" president, since his father was a Northern transplant and acted like it. Let's hope he's the last, until the South finishes its transition and starts acting like the rest of the country. But, by the same token, there is no chance whatsoever that the GOP will throw him from the train before November, because the same sort of Republicans now constitute the crucial core of its Congressional support.

I see that during my little ol' diatribe I plumb forgot to include Judis' URL: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040906&s=judis090604 .

Odd to have Brooks citing all the failures of the Bush administration in the Times, while on Friday he played right along, in a kinder and gentler way, of course, with the Swift Boat mob. He duly noted that the Swift Boat accusations had hurt Kerry's "credibility" without bothering to mention that every one of the Swifties accusations have been demostrated to be either unsupportable our outright false.

GOP grown-ups? They are the ones speaking at the convention, aren't they?

The need to prevail over people they detest is so overarching that winning is the only thing on Republican minds. If doing so involves violating principles they believe in and damaging the nation, that is no problem to them.

I'm not really sure what to make of Brooks' article. Part of me wants to say that he's smart enough to realize that a Gingrich-style reduction in government isn't going to happen, that he realizes that the government needs to be used smartly. But then another part of me wants to say, hasn't that pretty much been the saying of the Democrats for at least the past decade or so, to have not necessarily big government but to have wise, useful government?

Also, why don't we hear much about taxes from him? He wants a lot of stuff to happen, but with deficits becoming bigger and bigger, our abilities are limited.

Basically, this is nothing more than Republican pandering to the middle. The GOP cannot win without moderate swing voters. The GOP convention and the Bush campaign from now to November will tell voters that despite all the gay bashing, fiscal irresponsibility, profligate spending, mistakes and miscaluculations in Iraq, environmental degradation and pissing on the rest of the world, that despite all that, Bush is really a moderate and moderates should vote for Bush, not that liberal, Kerry. This is the spouse abuse model of national politics where after a night of hell, the abuser apologizes fervently, promises to do better in the future and makes nice. Bush has taken the country on a far right course and in the process has abused both the left and the moderates. Will the battered moderate swing voters forgive Bush?

Clearly many Republicans aren't happy with the
clown show. But let's enumerate the possibilities
and their outcomes:

A) Act now to try to dump Bush before the election

A1) Fail to dump Bush - grown-ups are "traitors"
party is horribly split, lose election.

A2) Succeed in dumping Bush - grown-ups are
"traitors", loony right is furious,
party is horribly split, lose election

B) Leave Bush in place

B1) Bush loses, loony right have to admit
that their policies/candidate have
failed. Battle for future of party,
with grown-ups viewed as loyal, loony
right severely weakened.

B2) Bush wins, grown-ups fight hard in private
to get moderates in 2nd term cabinet -
no more Ashcroft/Rumsfeld. Think of
this as late-Reagan

B3) Bush wins, chooses new loony cabinet
invades Iran, generally screws up for
another 4 years.

For a grown-up repub, B1 and B2 are both more
promising than A1 or A2. They just have to fight
hard to avoid B3. The current behavior is
rational.

“I DIDN’T REALIZE JESUS HAD SUCH GREAT ABS,”

So said my nine year old as we looked at the marvelous medieval crucifixion paintings in the Wadsworth Atheneum. Those dramatic old paintings mean a lot more to me since I saw Mel Gibson’s great movie of the Passion of the Christ and we were quite transfixed by the painting before us. My friends, this is a jewel of an art museum in downtown Hartford, CT. The wife’s degree is in Art History so we always make a point of visiting art museums wherever we go, and my daughter loves it.

For example, one very happy memory is her asking the wife “What’s the story of that painting?” as we looked at THE CORONATION OF NAPOLEON in the Louvre. My little Barbara absolutely adores history and I can think of no better medium for the study of history than the study of great artworks that portray history.

I am also a history buff and love to read anything I can find that will add to my knowledge thereof. But only great paintings can communicate the feelings, the pain, the humanity of history. History was made by real people and real people felt, laughed and suffered.

For example, Louis XVI Saying Farewell to his Family, painted in 1793 by the American painter Mather Brown was particularly compelling.

http://pep.typepad.com/photos/wadsworth_atheneum/hartford_yale_048.html

Marie Antoinette desperately appealed for heavenly intervention as a tearful little prince hugged his condemned father the King. A tearful little Princess reached for her daddy as hard faced revolutionary soldiers, clutching their 69 caliber Charleville muskets, glared nastily at this tragically heart wrenching scene.

My daughter wants to be a politician when she grows up and I explained how this painting was a perfect illustration of the history of “Peoples Movements,” like the French Revolution, the Marxists, the Communists and the Democrats. These so-called “peoples” movements are all based in envy and are always cruel to their perceived enemies.

She responded “Yeah,” pointing at the loving and well dressed but doomed Royal family she said “They’re the Republicans” and then pointing at the cruel soldiers she said “They’re the Democrats.”

Adrian -- don't worry at all about the psychological problems you are creating for your kids do you?

"Adrian -- don't worry at all about the psychological problems you are creating for your kids do you?

Posted by spencer'

HA, I'm creating psychological problems for you lefties. We took a tour of the Yale Campus and my brilliant, beautiful and dangerous daughter decided to go there because she wants to be President of the USA when she grows up. AND SHE WILL SUCCEED.

I hope I'm around to watch her torture you lefty losers.

My old roommate, a teacher, used to glumly describe the outcomes of his parent-teacher conferences this way:

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Best,

D

> I hope I'm around to watch her torture
> you lefty losers

We know you mean this literally.
Nice world you would create.

> I hope I'm around to watch her torture
> you lefty losers

We know you mean this literally.
Nice world you would create.

To think that you can lump together the Jacobins, Marxists, and the Democratic party is truly, truly nutty.

To think that you can lump together the Jacobins, Marxists, and the Democratic party is truly, truly nutty.

Posted by Walt Pohl

ARE THEY NOT ALL PRETENDING TO BE "PEOPLES" MOVEMENTS?

I AWAIT YOUR ANSWER.

> "fundamentalists, moderates, libertarians and old-fashioned Main Street types disagree violently over many things, but all agree that George W. Bush's administration has been a clown show"?

Let's be fair. What they agree on is that he makes a better cheerleader than quarterback. (A point that should come as no great surprise http://www.celebrity-pics.net/dp/2-22.htm )

BTW, there was a news story today that Bush no longer seems to think that it is a realistic goal to "rid the world of the evil doers" ( http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.bush.terrorism/ )

Now he says: "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040830/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush

Is that a flip flop or a merely a nuanced take on his original promise?

Schwartzenegger - (Condi) Rice in 2008.
They can't call them a Clown Show then.
Brawn, brains and talent issued by God!

By that time, Kerry will have pulled US
troops out of Iraq, tried to stem the
hemorrage of red on the Fed's budget books,
raised taxes, and watched interest rates
soar above 14%, destroying his policies
for full employment and peaceful commerce.

Arnie and Condi will win in a cakewalk,
after they pay the Iranians to release
our US hostages following the elections.

Hey, wait a minute!

KHarris - I can not find this source -

[David Brooks] duly noted that the Swift Boat accusations had hurt Kerry's "credibility" without bothering to mention that every one of the Swifties accusations have been demostrated to be either unsupportable our outright false.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/opinion/24brooks.html?

I'm launching a major investigation into whether the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization is being secretly financed by the Kerry campaign. For today that organization begins airing ads drawing attention to John Kerry's 1971 testimony against the Vietnam War.

Brooks's article in the Sunday Times magazine contains the following puzzling statement about Bush.

. . . The second group of Republicans is at least trying to come up with a governing philosophy that applies to the times. It understands the paradox that if you don't have a positive vision of government, you won't be able to limit the growth of government. If you can't offer people a vision of what government should do, you won't be able to persuade them about the things it shouldn't do. If the Republican Party is going to evolve into a principled majority party, members of this group are going to have to build a governing philosophy based on this insight. To his credit, George Bush falls into this latter category. . . .

I am unable to think of a single thing this administration has done that gives credence to Brooks's contention.

To be fair, Brooks then goes on offer a potentially constructive conservative governing philosophy, along the lines of what some have termed "national greatness conservatism." He sees this philosophy as GoP's heritage from Hamilton, Lincoln and TR. I say the current version of the party has sold that heritage down the river.

I really think you missed what Brooks was saying. It sounded to me like those people thought Bush was not conservative enough. They are worried about the war because it is not being fought Goldwater-style. They want to see more dead ragheads and fewer American casualties. They are not worried about the tax cuts, they want to see more spending cuts. He is trying to tell the American masses that the war matters more than the economy and that the deficit is caused by spending and waste - meaning social spending, not war spending.

Yo, Adrian

"He humbles those who dwell on high, he lays the lofty city low; he levels it to the ground and casts it down to the dust. Feet trample it down - the feet of the oppressed, the footsteps of the poor." Isaiah 26:5-6

"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on the earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourself in the day of slaughter." James 5

James and Isaiah seem to be on the side of the Jacobins here, rather than on the side of royalty. Sure, they brutally killed a royal family. Are there no paintings which show the royals living it up while the people toiled and begged? Probably not, after all, who pays the artists?
The Republicans also pretend to be a peoples' movement. Bush's tax cuts were falsely promoted as helping the poor and working poor and those trying to find work. Lies, all lies. Bush is a liar because he serves the father of lies. I happen to be a person in the bottom quintile smart enough to know who is not on my side.

Adrian,

If your daughter is as smart as you say, she's already realized her Dad is a raving nutbag--she just feeds you disinformation and cute questions to keep you off her back.

She'll turn her back on you the minute she gets out from underneath your loony thumb.

Anne,

I had in mind Friday's Brooks/Shields (sorry) segment on National Public Television - what once was the McNeil/Lehrer Hour and now is called something else. I have not had the opportunity till then of seeing Brooks speak (trying to set a good example by not letting the kids seem me glued to the tube). The contrast to Shields was subtle, but grating. It may be a generational difference, but it seemed like a difference in habits of honesty. Shields was partisan, but direct, saying what he meant. Brooks seemed to be giving every sentence a little bit of spin, talking about credibility while ignoring a pile of facts, because talking about credibility can be code for talking about honesty. Trying to say the only thing wrong with the Bush campaign is a lack of an agenda for the second term, while twisting away from a discussion of the first term. At least the NYT piece cited the weakness in performance in the first term. Gave me an icky sort of feeling, because the content clashed so much with the persona. At this point, I miss Gigot. At least he is what he pretends to be.

Wow, I knew Adrian was nutty, but to come out as a full fledged Tory just takes the cake.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec04/sb_08-27.html

So I think the swift boat controversy hurt him in particular because it came in a month where he couldn't seem to decide whether he would have gone to war in Iraq or would he not. Would he disapprove of the war now knowing what he did in Iraq, so I think it was the context of Kerry's sort of substantiability on Iraq and a whole host of other issues which created the swift boat controversy.

It's supposed to be evident, most people having taken a look at it, 64 swift boat guys have a view, but people like you say there's really nothing that convicts John Kerry here. But you do wonder about Kerry's credibility, that's the thing that's really at issue here.

David Brooks' endorsement of Big Government Conservatism shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. George Will has been calling himself a Henry Clay Whig for years. And was it Gingrich or Kemp who coined the term "National Greatness Conservatism"? Just a few months ago, Irving Kristol pointed to a tolerance for big government as one of the distinguishing features of neoconservatism.

Such an explicit embrace of government power, however, clashes with the faux "populism" of the New Right. Reagan appealed heavily to phony Jeffersonian values of localism and libertarianism. But the problem with such manufactured populism is that it leads to a perceived divorce between words and deeds. In a society where the official ideology opposes handouts or special treatment, and praises success by one's own efforts in the "free market," the actual corporate mercantilism of the Reagan administration stuck out like a sore thumb. It's what Habermas called "legitimation crisis." The current form of capitalism requires, for its very survival, massive state subsidies and intervention to protect big business from competition. Such a scale of intervention, and its direct contradiction of the official "free market" ideology, is impossible to ignore.

Neoconservatism, I think, is an attempt to solve this crisis of legitimacy by at least partially supplanting the old Jeffersonian ideology with a new ideology of service, sacrifice, and worship of the state. For example, consider Max Boot's lament in late 2001 that the level of casualties in Afghanistan was insufficient to inculate a proper spirit of sacrifice for the Fatherland.

"I happen to be a person in the bottom quintile smart enough to know who is not on my side.

Posted by Thomas Cook"

DO YOU EVER WONDER WHY YOU'RE IN THE BOTTOM? COULD IT BE THAT THAT'S WHERE YOU BELONG?

"I happen to be a person in the bottom quintile smart enough to know who is not on my side.

Posted by Thomas Cook"

DO YOU EVER WONDER WHY YOU'RE IN THE BOTTOM? COULD IT BE THAT THAT'S WHERE YOU BELONG?

Posted by Thomas Cook, "They want to see more dead ragheads and fewer American casualties."

Never a bad strategy IF the "ragheads" are combatants of any hew.

Adrian Spittle needs to stop typing in all caps. Second he will realize sooner if not later and much to his chagrin that children rebel against their parents. Perhaps a shot of Emerson would fix his soul: We become that which we most despise.
Finally there is a great deal of neo-Nazi symbolism in the current Republican party, down the "Gott mitt Uns" belt buckles. The Bush family has always gone in big for Naziism and other State totalitarian systems (to the extent that Prescott invested in Nazi enterprise, HW used Hitler speech phrases and quit the NRA when they called BATF "Jackbooted thugs") and the current inbred example is no exception. Brownshirts will be available at the MSG sales tables.

Back to the topic, we may be witnessing the disintegration of the Republican party. The ability to govern depends on the good opinion of the governed, and when traditionally staunch supporters are losing their enthusiasm...well! The special interests that created the Republicans won't go away, but I can only hope that the politicians will learn a useful lesson from this debacle and govern with at least one foot planted in reality.

Hey, I agree with Adrian Spindle:

These so-called “peoples” movements are all based in envy and are always cruel to their perceived enemies.

Mind you, Republicans proclaim that they are the "peoples" movement, they represent the sweat, brawn, lack of educations (or at least, lack of results of education), piety and everything else that characterises the common people. And when they perceive enemies, they want to nuke them, or, at the very least, they aplaud when these perceived enemies are tortured (while complaining that the tortures were to mild, no worse that frat hazing).

David Brooks himself urged Americans to steel themselves for the necessary atrocities. Ever champion of the people.

Actually, Adrian, you illustrate my point perfectly. To a Republican, like yourself, the bottom quintile is just "canaille" which does not deserve a decent life. That is how Potter saw it, but to George and Peter Bailey, they were the salt of the earth, the ones who do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community, and they should be helped into their own homes.
Also, it appears to me that your own dazzling, upper-quintile intellect used the word "hew" when he/she meant "hue". Not to mention the whole scary concept of shades of combatant. But hey, it's okay, you are rich, you have a great daughter - go enjoy yourself and stop picking fights with limosine liberals and the working class. If you were happier, you would be able to share some of that happiness.

Yuck, there is egg on my face, and I never did like eggs. I see that it was "Lawrence" who made the hue/hew error. Just to save time for anyone who wishes to point out my error. Thus in the coalition of the mean and stupid, Adrian is only the mean part.

Actually, Adrian, you illustrate my point perfectly. To a Republican, like yourself, the bottom quintile is just "canaille" which does not deserve a decent life.

A PERSON DESERVES THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT HE EARNS MORALLY AND ECONOMICALLY. IF EVERYONE WAS GIVEN THE SAME (VERY LITTLE) BY THE GOVERNMENT PEOPLE WOULDN'T KNOW IF THEY'RE DOING WELL OR NOT...

Also, it appears to me that your own dazzling, upper-quintile intellect

EXCUSE ME, UPPER 1 %

...But hey, it's okay, you are rich, you have a great daughter - go enjoy yourself and stop picking fights with limosine liberals and the working class.

I ONLY FIGHT THEM WHEN THEY TRY TO IMPOSE THEIR LOONINESS ON ME AND MINE.

If you were happier, you would be able to share some of that happiness.

Posted by: Thomas Cook

I'M ACTUALLY THE HAPPIEST PERSON YOU KNOW. WANNA FIGHT ABOUT THAT?