::

 
Clark - what kind of president would a medicore General make?

Wesley Clark is kicking around the idea of running for president as a Democrat.

I figured I'd watch his interview with Aaron Brown on CNN last night. The transcript is here.

The simple truth is that we went into Iraq on the basis of some intuition, some fear, and some exaggerated rhetoric and some very, very scanty evidence.

We found a situation that wasn't at all what was predicted. We're in there now, we're committed, we need to do our best. But that's a classic presidential-level misjudgment. And I think the voters have to be aware of that. And they have to appreciate it.

And if democracy means something, then that will be reflected in the ballot box.

Wrong, General.

Where to start with a four star idiotarian.

First - the war was about what all wars are about - imposition of will. Clark's rantlet reflects that he sees the Army in particular and the military in general as a police force. It needs a warrant to go arrest people. This misconception of the legitimacy of power in modern times is typical, but stunning when coming from a guy who only recently stepped out of a pickle suit. He needs to read Clausewitz.

But if one wants to get down to legalisms, fine. UNSCR 1441 laid out (by unanimous vote of UNSC members) very specific requirements for the Iraqi regime to come into compliance with prior resolutions. They chose not to. They got their asses kicked. Imposition of will. Nice and legal.

Second - "Scanty evidence" / "classic presidential-level misjudgment"

As color man for CNN's war coverage, Clark demonstrated a refined ability to make "classic presidential-level misjudgments" based on "Scanty evidence." When sandstorms and sporadic resistance slowed the US advance on Baghdad, Clark launched into dire predictions based on "not enough manpower."

Clark knows one half of air-land battle - air. That is what he managed from an air-conditioned building as the Kosovo War was fought. Had the General paid attention in school, he'd have realized that mobility and mass sometimes work against each other. And speed was the hallmark of that war. Not overwhelming force. Not "bomb into submission."

Third - Democracy does mean something. It means that if you run for president, you are in for a very rude awakening. You will get very candid feedback from people of life's lower ranks. Your feelings will not be spared. Nor your reputation. Democracy means that the people pass judgement on those who'd like to lead them. More often than not candidates find this a very humbling process. We allow leaders to make mistakes, but we rarely allow them to be hypocrites.

Adam Sullivan, 19:29 | 0 comments

::

 
Read it now

Rush Limbaugh has posted his thoughts on why the Schwarzenegger candidacy is not going to split the conservative camp.

I say read it now because Limbaugh will likely bury it behind the subscription wall on his site in the next 24 hours, and I figure many of you readers will not want to pay to read Rush.

His points are interesting.

First, he paints Arnold as not pro choice/pro gay - he just isn't anti-choice/anti-gay.

"Look, I've heard Schwarzenegger talk about this, and it's not that he's pro-choice or pro-gay marriage. What Schwarzenegger is saying is he doesn't care who somebody sleeps with because that's not the issue here in California." I kept trying to hammer it home, and said why I want to bring it up now: because there may be a fissure among some cultural conservatives, but don't count me among them.

Then he gets to the crux of his argument -

This California recall election has nothing to do with cultural issues. The people in California engaged in this recall because of pure fiscal circumstances. The state's in debt, businesses are leaving, population growth stems strictly from immigration - much of it illegal. Taxes are at an all-time high and there's no indication that's going to change. There is no policy to deal with the stagnated economy and the budget deficit and the rampant spending out there, and it is for this reason the people of California are upset when it comes to electing whoever it is they elect out there. It's going to revolve around who best addresses these issues. It isn't going to involve abortion; it's not going to involve gay rights. There may be people try to make it that, but it isn't going to revolve around it. Well, maybe there are people trying to make it that.

I said interesting. I didn't say right.

Limbaugh fails to see a critical event that he did not pay attention to many years ago.

When George Bush Sr. ran for re-election, his convention was a social conservative orgy. Between declaring cultural wars, insisting that only pro-life judges would be appointed going forward, and pushing school prayer, convention speakers focused almost exclusively on the social agenda. There were pragmatic reasons for this - centered on the Pat Buchanan surge in the primaries. Social conservatives never trusted Bush Sr. Big tent theory required over-compensation. The convention as social conservative info-mercial was the solution.

It cost Bush the election. Bush's numbers started to slide after a mild convention bump, especially among women. The gender gap in that election was wide. Neither Bush nor Clinton got a popular majority. Perot's message of fiscal conservatism drew away enough defectors (as did Clinton's middle class tax cut) to seal Bush's political retirement.

The catalyst was social conservatism. In California - where Republicans held many statewide offices, including the governorship, for many, many years - the landscape changed. Now, not a single Republican holds statewide office. A stunning reversal of political fortune. In the same period, the California Republican party was transformed from a Pete Wilson mold to a Pat Robertson mold.

Straight up, Californians in large numbers (including Republicans) think the social conservative agenda sucks. Bill Simon lost to Gray Davis when Gray Davis had 30% positives. Where else has that happened recently? Saddam's Iraq comes to mind, but that is about it. Bill Simon's message in the primary was social conservatism. The social libertarians split the rest of the Republican votes. Yes, Davis' ads against Riordan helped, but many of them (especially those run in the central valley) ran on the "Is Riordan a conservative" theme. Many who voted Simon did so to vote against Davis, but too many found his agenda too scary - better the incompetent known than the zealot.

The issue isn't social conservatism, but a perceived social conservative agenda will keep many from voting for a Republican, even if they prefer the candidate on fiscal issues.

Without social libertarian leanings, no Republican can win statewide. Not now. Not in the future. The "incrementalism" that Limbaugh cites works against social conservatism on this coast and always has. Crack any history book.

To win a conservative has to push the fiscal agenda and keep the social agenda at arm's length. Wink wink. Nod nod. "I will talk the talk, but won't walk the walk" is the message such candidates send. What do you think Reagan did when he'd address Pro Life rallies outside the White House via speaker phone? He wouldn't be caught dead on that podium. He was smart enough to know how to move around that big tent without the wrong picture being taken.

Limbaugh has his head in the sand. It will come out in about a month. You will then hear him rail on Arnold as a wolf in sheep's clothing (Rush will phrase it more cleverly) and push Simon. Pushing Simon and the social conservative agenda in California is like pushing a string - it ain't going anywhere.


Adam Sullivan, 17:41 | 0 comments

::

 
Silly, but getting less so

FoxNews has a poll that says about half the country thinks the California Recall is silly.

To me, the poll demonstrates the sheer stupidity of the press coverage. Most accounts I have read before today pay attention to spectacle and fail to attempt analysis. When analysis is attempted, it often concluded that Californians pay attention to spectacle and fail to attempt analysis.

Media coverage of the recall has largely been silly. It is so unserious that you often see is projection of an outlets' views on to the situation labeled as examination.

Take this op-ed called The Fringe on Top in The Village Voice

When conventional Democrats get together to strategize, the conclusion is ever thus: The center must lead. By this thinking, gauging what the greatest number of Americans already believe, then convincing them that you've always thought exactly the same thing, is the only way to win. Just look at Clinton.

Republicans, led by their conservative wing, do things differently. They honor the example of history—which reliably demonstrates that lasting political success only rarely originates in the center. It more often occurs when ideas once considered extreme get successfully marketed as safely centrist ones. They deem risky notions worth the chance, because such ideas can secure the biggest victory of all: changing the terms of the political debate. Then conservatives can control the playing field, with all the attendant home-field advantages.

That's the lesson of Arnold Schwarzenegger's entrance into the special election for California governor on October 7.

It goes on to label Schwarzenegger as an extremist. This fails to account for the fact that the guy is Pro-Choice, Pro Gay Rights, and is moderately anti-gun.

Extremism? Read it - you'll realize that the writer begs the question - he has assumed that anyone who registers Republican and runs for office is an extremist, and then goes on to use Schwarzenegger's run as an example of extremists changing the political landscape.

Silly. But telling of The Village Voice's biases.

But things are getting less silly as the press settle into the story.

As welcome relief from normally paternalistic reporting, the San Francisco Chronicle is actually doing a bit of reporting, as evidenced here:

As Arnold Schwarzenegger explodes onto the national political scene as California's great Republican hope, conservatives are increasingly voicing concern over his lack of right-wing credentials.

From talk radio to the pages of conservative journals, Republicans are openly struggling over whether to rally around a man who may break the Democratic lock on state government, or keep their distance from a candidate who appears to be at odds with their core ideology.

Pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights -- and yet to identify a single cut he'd make in the state's deficit-ridden budget -- Schwarzenegger would put a new face on the Republican Party from coast to coast.

Did someone say revolt against party politics?

Then we have the NYT reporting that Arnold's popularity is splitting the Bush camp. In light of their social conservative orthodoxy, they are presented with some bad choices.

We also have WaPo reporting on the seriously bad choices for the Democrats.

As stated here before, this Recall will usurp California's role as battleground for the national parties. Frankly, we are sick of having the national agenda of each imposed upon us. Without a primary or a run-off, there are now no party guardrails. The fact that plurality wins, and that we have multiple Democrats, multiple Republicans, and plenty of independents running destroys all party discipline and orthodoxy. To win, candidates actually have to appeal to a broad cross section of Californians, not a narrow disciplined group who gets plurality in the primary and gets to be one of two horses in the statewide election.

As the reporting is starting to demonstrate, the media are coming to recognize this. This is a damned good thing. Seriously.

Adam Sullivan, 16:55 | 0 comments

::

 
I took the country quiz

And lookie here ...

You're North Korea!

Look out!  You're absolutely wacko.  Completely insane.
 There's no telling what you're going to do, and it could make you a danger to
yourself and others.  People are so scared of you that they usually just cover
their eyes and pretend you're not there.  The main impact this has had is to
make you even more scary, as you yearn for attention and contact with the outside
world.  Everyone just wants you to calm down.

Take the Country Quiz at the Blue Pyramid

I won't calm down.

Michael Totten came up as Canada. Maybe I can extort some wheat or lumber from him.
Adam Sullivan, 15:57 | 0 comments

::

 
Susan Watts does not corroborate Gilligan

A scant 10 hours ago, the BBC, The Independent, and The Mirror all cited BBC correspondent Susan Watts as having notes that corroborated Gilligan's assertions regarding Alastair Campbell being named as culprit for "sexing up" the UK's Iraqi Dossier.

Apostolou has summarized this morning what Susan Watts revealed today. She stated that BBC management sought to "mould the stories" and "to corroborate" Mr Gilligan's reporting. Ms Watts said: "I was unhappy about that."

As for her transcript of her interview with Kelly, Apostolou reprints the key part. Kelly asserts that he saw no effort by the Blair government to mislead or be dishonest. Instead of corroborating Gilligan, it looks like Watts' notes corroborate Blair.

As for witness credibility, be aware that Watts took complete notes via tape recorder and pen and paper. Gilligan's notes were spotty because he entered them on a Palm Pilot.

Adam Sullivan, 12:59 | 0 comments

::

 
The Gilligan Roundup

BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan had a bad day yesterday as he testified for the judicial inquiry investigating David Kelly's death.

The WaPo has a cursory account - only worth a glance if you are unfamiliar with the Gilligan/Kelly story. The NYT account is a whitewash in favor of Gilligan and the BBC.

The Financial Times has a good run down here in a story titled Gilligan damned by evidence of colleagues. The story notes excerpts from a damning memo by Gilligan's supervisor at the BBC which characterizes Gilligan's reporting as "loose" - a term used repeatedly in the memo. The Guardian has posted it here.

Telling is that Gilligan's supervisor uses the memo to propose strict supervision as needed in light of Gilligan's mistakes.

More telling is the NYT's complete account for the same memo in its whitewash account:

And one of the reporter's own bosses, Kevin Marsh, questioned Mr. Gilligan's "flawed reporting" in an e-mail message, the inquiry was told today. Mr. Gilligan himself acknowledged today that his choice of some words in the May 29 report was "not perfect".

Off the hook at the NYT with a "not perfect." Sounds like little was learned at the NYT from the Blair scandal.


Adam Sullivan, 03:11 | 0 comments

::

 
A very important battle in the larger war

Andrew Apostolou (who is paid by Oxford University to sit around and contemplate minor matters such as the history of civilization, the West, economics, and the Middle East) was kind enough to email me the just disclosed transcript of BBC charlatan cum reporter Andrew Gilligan's follow-up testimony to the UK Foreign Affairs Committee. Recall that Gilligan and BBC management had succeeded, until now, in keeping this testimony from being made public on the grounds that doing so would damage Gilligan's health.

Indeed it will.

Gilligan exposes himself as an unrepentant fraud and angers the Committee in the process. Perhaps there is a mental disorder to explain this, but I think it is an intellectual disorder.

For now, I am not going to regurge the testimony. Instead, I ask you, kind reader, to stand back from the semantic juggling act that is his testimony and view the situation in a very broad context. What we have is a critical battle in a critical phase of a war defending Western Civilization.

I say Gilligan is unrepentant for the simple reason that his testimony shows moral certainty on his part regarding his prior assertions that Committee members demonstrate to him as false. He does not submit himself to the rigors of rationality, yet he maintains that the BBC has "higher standards" than other news organizations. Surely those standards therefore have no basis in rationality. What must make them higher is that BBC news is nuanced so as to conform to an aesthetic of a higher truth that they have already committed to - that this war is wrong.

At immediate risk is the support of the UK in this war. If Blair is dumped over the David Kelly affair, you will see neither a Tory nor Labor PM willing to fight on. They will declare victory and withdraw. That is the battle - a very important one. Western civilization needs Tony Blair to be the PM of the UK, for this a war in defense of the West.

But there is a much bigger war. It goes beyond Al Qaeda. It goes beyond Ba'athism. It goes beyond the Middle East. Its domain is the green turning brown patches of the planet that we live on. It is a war that will determine the course of globalization.

Globalization will happen. It is a certainty driven by technology and markets. The core question is one of rationality - will we view the world and its objects, its citizens, its relationships, its governments in terms of a rational order or an irrational one? Will we have a global renaissance or a global dark age? Will we pluralistically unite effort in rational pursuits under rule of law or will we balkanize into feudal societies in order to glorify mystical forces, accessed exclusively (and thereby corrupted) by clerical elites?

This is not about 5th column bullshit. Those in the west who substantively aid the Islamo-Fascists in creating a mystical order largely do so unwittingly. Gilligan is an educated man who probably considers himself providing a service to his fellow man. But he probably does not see it a service to his country or western civilization. He probably holds such notions as gauche. I paint him with that brush (perhaps unfairly, but I doubt it) because he represents an intellectual nexus that I choose to call trans-rational.

A trans-rationalist is literally too clever for his own good. He uses rational tools to defend assertions that conform to the seemingly true. The "what should be true." The truths of accelerated social progress. When I say rational tools, I include Derrida's body of critical theory and methods for deconstructive criticism. It is rationally derived. Though it is the bane of many, that (IMO) is due largely to its mis-application (which Derrida caveated against) which I wrote about here.

This trans-rationalist Nexus, however, is not centered on Post Modernism. Consider the die hard PoMos the Black Panthers of this broader group. This is an undisciplined gaggle of free thinkers who represent intellectual decadence. They make false constructions but defend them through counter-attack. "If you cannot disprove my assertion, then it must be true" is the method of defense.

You see that method in Gilligan's testimony. You see it throughout political discourse these days. When accepted as valid, it corrodes the foundations of rationality and represents a dangerous fraud of a decadent and lazy intelligentsia with lethal implications. Something I will burden you with later. I need time to condense the thoughts into something you may actually want to read.


Adam Sullivan, 15:45 | 0 comments

::

 
Markets require market forces to generate value

Today, Michael Totten has posted on the idea of mandatory health insurance as a way of creating universal health coverage in the United States. He aptly calls this "Socialism Without the Socialism." It is a post well worth reading, as he points out that the idea may find itself in a custody battle between Republicans and Democrats wanting to take credit for it.

My enthusiasm for the idea, however, is luke warm. Not because the idea is a bad one - it is quite good. My problem is that, like Major League Baseball, the insurance industry has built up a stash of quite a few exemptions from antitrust law. Stated plainly, they are exempted from many of the competitive forces that drive out inefficiencies and create value in other markets.

For a summary of these exemptions, here is a link worth looking at. You will find that both the courts and some Democrat politicians are trying to chip away at those exemptions.

To have socialism without socialism, you have to have markets with market forces. Insurance companies maintain strong lobbies not only in Washington, but all of the state capitals. They sell risk coverage, which one would assume a competitive market would rationalize into a low margin business - like grocery stores. Exemptions keep the profit margins higher (which helps pay for all of those lobbyists).

So I don't agree with the central assumption that a larger risk pool will spread risk and reduce premiums. Not without forcing these companies to fight it out in the market place.

Adam Sullivan, 11:04 | 0 comments

::

 
Here come the goons.

When industrial labor originally organized here in the US, management would often hire thugs to intimidate and abuse those who would join a union or a strike. They were called goons, and their role was a simple one - maintain the existing order through intimidation.

In the California Recall, we have both the Democrats and the Republicans trotting out political goons in an effort to discredit a political process that they cannot control. Like owners of political sweat shops, they have created an intolerable environment for civil discourse. And when the electorate acts against such, they worry that they will soon lose control of their franchises.

So we are served with analysis and opinion that is as moronic as it is mocking. Devoid of insight, it seeks to add to the spectacle in an effort to discredit direct democracy as chaotic and illegitimate. They wish to maintain the lemmingtocracy from which they derive their power.

In a witless diatribe entitled "Who Let The Clowns Out" GOP goon Mike Bayham dispenses this nugget for the Golden State:

Arnold Schwarzenegger (no relation to the other Arnold) did a political about face prior to his appearance on the "Jay Leno Show", the Hollywood version of Larry King, and declared his candidacy to depose incumbent Governor Gray Davis as presiding officer of one of the biggest governmental meltdowns this side of Argentina.

...

The fickle electorate has decided to blame for the poor shape of the state the same man they returned to office not even a year ago, yet the real culprit are the voters, who should have known better.

Like the insolent children who did not make it to the end of the tour of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, they will hopefully be a little wiser and responsible with their decisions in the upcoming recall election.

Anyone that mistakes the recall for a Right Wing conspiracy ought to consult such a Right Wing conspirator. Of course, the argument that the voters did this to themselves allows the party that nominated ill-fitted Bill Simon to escape any culpability.

So as not to be outdone, "progressive" Harold Meyerson beats on the electorate with his billy club:

The recall circus into which the state has now been plunged is the reductio ad absurdum of these middle-class eruptions. Though it began more simply, as Darrell Issa's new-age coup d'etat, it quickly took on all the symptoms of a classic California convulsion, in which the state's problem (supposedly, Gray Davis) and its solution (supposedly, Arnold Schwarzenegger) are characteristically misidentified. But in a state where television news coverage of politics and government is nonexistent and where the entertainment industry is covered (actually, hyped) constantly, the emergence of Arnold as the political savior of the month should come as no surprise.

The sheer abundance of fruitcake and exhibitionist candidates, the treatment of politics as tabloid entertainment, the touting of Schwarzenegger's "leadership" capacities (as evidenced by what? Conan's rescue of the princess?) and his quick embrace (according to the polls) by a quarter of the California electorate -- all these seem to come straight out Nathanael West's 1939 comic-grotesque novel of Los Angeles' embittered and sensation-seeking lower-middle class, "The Day of the Locust."

My, what a pedestal we have built for ourselves, eh Harry? Should fruitcake and exhibitionists be banned from the political process? If so, who is to determine such? That only a handful of the candidates fit this mold undermines this "progressive's" argument. Never mind - he made WaPo with his rantlet.

The threat: Politics without party guardrails

Notice that neither political expert bothers to examine what these people think - only what they symbolize. They present these candidates as symbols of absurdity. What they really represent are a substantive threat to national party power. The California recall process is one without the political guardrails of primaries and the two party press conferences often misconstrued as "debates."

Bear in mind that these two parties and their lemming herders did everything they could to create the bitter environment of recall. California, with 20% of the electoral vote, is naturally a battleground state. Republican Governor's succeeded here when they balanced fiscal conservatism with social libertarianism. After succumbing to a national pro-life party purge, California Republicans have been swept from state offices and the state party is dominated by an enclave that pushes the national social agenda on an electorate which has repeatedly asserted that it doesn't want it.

Democrats now take California for granted, and have pushed for "progressive" government largess that expanded the state's budget by 37% in Davis' first 2 years. This was paid for with windfall tax revenue from speculative IPO wealth - a non-recurring revenue source. Intransigence over cutting any of these new expenditures have produce a new budget that will not impact the state's enormous deficit. Yet DNC chair Terry McAuliffe cheers from the sideline, hailing this as an accomplishment, pointing out that the Republican's should be ashamed for any cuts effected.

The open slate undermines party power ...

What is most interesting about this recall is that the open slate with no primary undermines the ability of the major parties to control the outcome. Further, the voter cannot really vote "against" someone which can only happen when the field is 2 or 3 candidates. Sans primary, the voter has to "vote for" someone - a very positive development in this cynical political age.

... and disarms the negative.

The parties depend on negative advertising - it is far easier to drive up your opponents negatives than it is to drive up your positives. It is a matter of money and expedience. But driving the negative is expensive if you have to aim it in 20 directions.

Yet, we have our sophisticated, analytical punditry (and our senior Senator) calling this "a circus" and a "bad idea." From the perspective of a party hack, one could suppose those to be accurate characterizations for such a threatening process.

The emerging bogusphere

For many bloggers who wish to become pundits, this has revealed a stunning hypocrisy. Many of the most popular present themselves as libertarians and populists by nature. They see the blogosphere as a sort of meritocracy, where ideas and argument are currency. Many envision the technology of the Internet as politically transformative, and question the whole notion of left/right and political labeling.

Here we have a high stakes election that is truly populist and where parties have been deprived of slating candidates that fit their mold. The electorate is presented with candidates who defy such molds. One would think that such would be a welcome evolution. Instead, we have bloggers becoming lemming herders - parroting those the aspire to replace. We have the bogusphere joining the major media outlets in characterizing this election as somehow illegitimate with candidates that lack credibility.

Government exists by the consent of the governed. How can withdrawing consent (without endorsement of the major parties) be considered illegitimate? Or be characterized as a carnival?

The credibility at stake here is not of California's, but of the punditry itself. The only thing that legitimizes a candidate in a democracy is the vote. The only thing that legitimizes a state in a democracy is lawful and successful governance under the people's consent. From those standards, this Recall is nothing to demean, or even pronounce as "bad for California". It is very bad for the national political parties. And it is disaster for those who make a living telling us how we should think. Clearly they are and have been wrong.

Six years ago, Californians were presented with a Democrat whose credentials were impeccable. The politically serious told us to take him seriously - that no one could be more successful at the job. That he failed so spectacularly is not an indictment of California's electorate - it indicts those who would present themselves as our betters. To them, I ask that they keep it up. Keep talking. Keep mocking. Keep sneering. For this all amounts to self incrimination, and we are taking note. Each sentence will make your convictions and subsequent isolation as political goons easier to obtain.

Update: Roger Simon comments.

Adam Sullivan, 13:29 | 0 comments