Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode XCIV

But George McGovern was right!

THE DEMOCRATS see a hobgoblin under the bed, and his name is George McGovern. Low-grade panic is beginning to set in as pundits forecast a repeat of 1972: "As Massachusetts goes, so goes the District of Columbia." The prospect of "another McGovern" whets the appetite of Bush partisans while generating gloom and shame among Democrats. Howard Dean, for one, flees the association, while other candidates tar him with it.

Here's the problem: In 1972, McGovern was right. If there is shame attached to that election, it is America's for having so dramatically elected the wrong man. Apart from the rank dishonesty of Richard Nixon and his administration (a pattern of lies that would be exposed in Watergate), there were two world-historic issues that defined that election, and on both Nixon was wrong. 1972 was a fork in the road, and history shows that the United States made a turn into a moral wilderness from which it has yet to emerge.

Obviously, the first issue was the Vietnam War. Having been elected in 1968 promising "peace with honor," Nixon was well on the way to neither. Ground forces had been "Vietnamized" (the last US combat units would be withdrawn a few months after the election), but a savage air war was underway throughout Vietnam (Nixon had spread it into Cambodia, too, disastrously). After the traumas of 1968, Americans had willfully accepted Nixon's sleight-of-hand on Vietnam, and the news media cooperated. As one NBC television producer recalled, news executives decided that after 1969, the "story" would be "the peace negotiations, not the fighting."

By 1972, Americans did not want to hear about Vietnam. They pretended that Nixon had ended the war. "And he has ended the war," the NBC producer said that year, "because you don't see the war on the tube anymore. So the war has ended, though we are bombing the hell out of those poor people, more than ever." (On that media failure, see Godfrey Hodgson, "America In Our Time.") Five weeks after the election, Nixon would order the Christmas bombing of Hanoi, the most ferocious air attack since the firebombing of Japan. Instead of peace with honor, there would be defeat with disgrace -- after yet two more years of carnage. George McGovern faced the American people with the unwanted truth of what their government was doing. That is a source of shame?

But there was an equally charged issue separating the two candidates in 1972. Nixon was the avatar of America's tragic Cold War mistake. His entire career was informed by a paranoid assessment of the Soviet threat. "It's a we/they world," Paul Nitze said when he served in the Nixon administration. "It's us against the Soviets. Either we get them first, or they get us first." (Nitze was Nixon's idea of an arms control negotiator.) This apocalyptic way of perceiving the enemy was already outmoded in the early '70s, but it would take American statesmen another two decades to see it. Nitze, Richard Perle, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Paul D. Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney -- such apostles of the "we/they world" were empowered in 1972, and if their bipolar vision had not been undercut by Mikhail Gorbachev, the Cold War would still be on. Indeed, these men of 1972 are back, aiming to create another.

McGovern was an opponent of the "we/they" vision. A prophet of detente, he has since been vindicated by history. He offered America a way out of the trap that opposes "realist" and "idealist" perspectives. McGovern understood not only that the Vietnam War was wrong but that in the nuclear age, the realist is the one who sees that the structures of war itself must be systematically dismantled. One hears the complaint from today's Democrats that McGovern, a decorated World War II bomber pilot, did not tout his war hero's record, but that entirely misses his most important point -- that fear of war and glorification of war are simply not to be exploited for political purposes, whether at the personal level or the national. What McGovern the candidate refused to do is what American presidents should refuse to do.

George W. Bush obscenely exploits war for his own purposes. He sponsors a paranoid assessment of what threatens America now and draws political advantage from the resulting fear. The news media propagate that fear. Pundits continue the false opposition between "realist" and "idealist" visions, marginalizing anyone who dares question Garrison America. Meanwhile, the unnecessary Bush war rages, and not even the steady death toll of young GIs makes much news anymore. If a Democrat running for president dares to speak the truth about these things, it is the furthest thing from shame. And before feeling gloom about next November, ask what it means if the Democrat, to win, must do what Nixon did.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Not only was McGovern right; at the same time, mainstream media went easy on... Richard Milhous Nixon. And Mikhail Gorbachev ended the Cold War. (Though Carroll probably thinks it's a shame the USA won out.) And opponents of the war on terrorism are "marginalized" — on practically every op-ed page from coast to coast.

The only decent reply to this blithering insanity is an uncontrollable belly laugh. And a hearty Keep 'em coming, Jimmy! I can't wait to read your columns in November and December!

And it need hardly be said — but I'll say it, just in case — that when Father James Carroll talks about a "moral wilderness" he's not talking about fornication, homosexuality, adultery, divorce & remarriage, or abortion.

See also "Of Thanks and Mercy"?

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/06/04 09:35:19 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.

Hunches for 2004

I won't call these predictions. I won't even dignify them by calling them guesses. They're just hunches, that's all.

1. George W. Bush will win California in the general election, largely because of Arnold Scharzenegger's gubernatorship, and because most Californians will have discovered that they just plain & simple like those two guys better than any Democratic politican they know of;
2. the Republicans will pick up seats in both the US House and Senate, perhaps even an astoundingly unexpected increase;
3. despite continual alerts, terrorists will wait until late summer or early fall to attempt a major attack on US interests, hoping to influence the presidential election, which they will do in the direction opposite to that which they intend;
4. Arlen Specter will not be the senior senator from Pennsylvania in the next Congress;
5. George W. Bush will lose Pennsylvania in the general election, but will win both the electoral and popular votes nationwide by an indisputable margin because, among other things, California is more important than Pennsylvania.

Well, I suppose that just goes to show how naive we can be in Small-Town America.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/06/04 09:21:48 PM
Categorized as Other.

Is a Prominent Wing of the Democratic Party Turning Against Doctor Howard "Cliff" Dean?

See here, here, and here.

My own intuition is that the mainstream-media branch of the Democratic Party both loves and fears Howard Dean: they love him for his left-wing positions (when, where, and for how long he takes left-wing positions) but they fear him for what he could do to the political branch of the Democratic Establishment. And it's really hard to know how to treat someone whom you both love and fear.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/06/04 09:04:18 PM
Categorized as Political.

Doctor Howard Dean

I just love this, too.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/06/04 08:53:09 PM
Categorized as Political.

Howard "Cliff" Dean

I just love this.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/06/04 08:47:10 PM
Categorized as Political.

Britney Spears' "Marriage"

Surely, Faithful Reader, you are surprised — nay, astonished! — that The Blog from the Core would take notice of Dr. Spears' recent, brief foray into putative marriage.

I merely want to point out that she must have found out right away that the married life would interfere with her very important academic pursuits.

;-)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/06/04 04:48:31 PM
Categorized as Other.

Epiphany

Today — the Twelfth Day of (after) Christmas — is the traditional date of the Solemnity of the Epiphany, and it is still celebrated today in much of the Catholic world, I believe. See Summa Minutiae and Newman Reader for topical reading.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/06/04 07:28:44 AM
Categorized as Religious.

"Jerry Brown Proposes Taxes on Junk Food, Alcohol"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode XCIII

Out of the depths of the backlog — former Calfornia governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown says the Left Coast can fix its problems by... wait for it... raising taxes on ordinary people, according to the San Mateo Daily Journal, Dec. 20, 2003.

Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown has suggested one way the state could generate more revenue and solve its budget woes is to levy taxes on unhealthy behaviors such as drinking and eating junk food.

In an interview Thursday, Brown said “there are a number of activities” that could be taxed and suggested a tax on people who eat salty and sugary foods as well as “a tippler tax on those who drink at the bar.”

His spokeswoman, T.T. Nhu, said Friday that Brown thinks “it would be beneficial to have a junk food tax” and he’s been influenced by policies in Canada, which taxes chocolate in addition to alcohol and cigarettes.

But a writer for the libertarian-oriented think tank the Cato Institute, which is based in Washington, D.C., said today that so-called “sin taxes” are a bad idea because they don’t stop the behaviors they’re supposedly aimed at halting.

The writer, Radley Balko, also said that alcohol taxes are “incredibly regressive,” falling disproportionately on the poor, as they spend a greater percentage of their income on alcohol.

Balko said politicians usually say the reason they want to impose sin taxes is to stop unhealthy behavior and he’s never before heard an elected official say, as Brown did, that the real purpose is to raise money.

“That’s a novel approach,” Balko said.

He said sin taxes do generate revenue, but he questioned the sincerity of government officials who say their real priority is stopping the behavior they’re taxing, as sin taxes usually are proposed only when governments face large budget shortfalls.

In the case of tobacco taxes, state and local governments have become addicted to the revenue they generate and would take a financial hit if fewer people smoked, Balko said.

He added that steep tax hikes spur people to buy products on the black market instead of in retail stores. Because of high taxes, the bootleg cigarette market has thrived for decades in New York City, diverting millions of dollars from lawful businesspeople into the pockets of criminals and terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Balko said.

The same thing could happen in places where alcohol taxes are dramatically raised, he said.

Balko said the people least likely to stop drinking because of increased alcohol taxes are alcoholics, as they would continue to drink, and those most affected would be social drinkers and lower middle class people.

In a recent paper entitled “Back Door to Prohibition: The New War on Social Drinking,” Balko said excise taxes unfairly force all drinkers to pay for the societal costs attributable to a small number of drinkers who abuse alcohol.

Balko said Friday that Brown is part of a nationwide trend in exploring the possibility of taxing junk foods.

Nhu said Brown’s thoughts about sin taxes are “just an idea” for now.

But she said Brown thinks higher taxes in some form are needed to put the state’s financial house in order, even though Gov. Schwarzenegger believes that the state’s problems are caused by overspending and not under-taxation.

Nhu said Brown believes, “Inevitably, a decrease in taxes will lead to an increase in taxes,” as he thinks that lower taxes create budget problems that have to be fixed down the road.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Trying to find more things to tax more people for — chocolate!?! — what a way to get out the vote, Moonbeam! If you get more (any?) influence in these matters, I'm sure you can expect a personal thank-you note from the Republican National Committee.

P.S. Isn't this kind of tax what the liberals usually deride as a "regressive" tax? IOW, it doesn't punish the rich for being rich.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/06/04 06:59:18 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.

"Recipe for a Landslide"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode XCII

Out of the depths of the backlog — an editorial at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dec. 21, 2003.

AS HOWARD DEAN RUSHES to the head of the pack of donkeys, many Democrats are proving that their memories aren't as long as elephants' are.

In 1972, George McGovern lost in a landslide after running a principled campaign based on opposition to the Vietnam War.

In 1984, Walter Mondale captured the imagination of the Democratic National Convention by proposing a tax increase. That didn't exactly capture the imagination of the electorate.

In 1988, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., ran for president on a platform of economic nationalism. He lost, partly because opinion leaders - and voters - rejected his opposition to free trade.

Enter Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor. Dr. Dean's campaign caught fire because of his principled opposition to the war in Iraq. He called for a tax increase to offset the huge deficit. And he joined other Democrats in calling for limitations on free trade. Throw in Mr. Dean's progressive positions on gay unions and abortion and you've got a recipe for a Republican landslide.

There were and are good reasons to oppose war, to favor a more equitable tax structure, to worry about job losses due to free trade, and to favor gay unions and abortion rights. But someone has to wonder why a political agenda that combines losing planks from 1972, 1984 and 1988 is going to win in 2004.

Granted, it's early to be anointing or writing off anyone. Nobody has voted. Sixteen years ago, the late Sen. Paul Simon led in the polls in Iowa at this point in the campaign. At this point in 1991, Bill Clinton had done little to distinguish himself from a pack of six candidates.

In addition, if Mr. Dean is nominated he will most likely veer to the middle and emphasize his relatively moderate record in Vermont. And maybe there's some truth in the new conventional wisdom that the races this year are more likely to be won by energized party bases - strong liberals and conservatives - than by middle-of-the-roaders.

The capture of Saddam Hussein has provided the opportunity for some ill-tempered donkeys with poor memories to give Dr. Dean a good swift kick on national security in a particularly nasty television ad. They've forgotten another important lesson from Democratic history: Circular firing squads are hazardous to a party's health.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

According to Harley Sorensen, I should think, the editorial staff at the Post-Dispatch is just ruining the party — turning it into Republican Lite, in fact. But that's okay: the Democratic politicians are listening to the likes of Sorensen, not the likes of SLPD.

You know what? I think we're past the point in history where a Democratic candidate can successfully run to the left in the primaries then race back to the center for the general election and fool everybody: I think a lot more people are paying attention much earlier in the campaign than ever before, and much more information is more widely available, and will remain available, than in previous elections.

(Thanks, Christopher.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/06/04 06:50:13 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.