Condi Rice, Sudden Media Darling

September 30, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

Jay Nordinger from NRO’s “The Corner” spots this scathing lede from an AP Report last week:

“One is the nation’s top diplomat with a doctorate in Russian studies who has visited more than 50 foreign countries this year alone. The other is the first-term governor of Alaska who may have seen Russia on a clear day and got her first passport just last year.”

The Georgian Metaphor

September 30, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs | Leave a Comment 

Former Sec. of States Henry Kissinger and George Shultz warn that the recent conflict with Russian and Georgia doesn’t put the world in danger of “general war,” however it could be a “metaphor” for something potentially volatile. That’s why both diplomats, believe that diplomacy and strength need to remain in step.

The Conservative Pragmatist

September 30, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under UK Politics | Leave a Comment 

Legendary Tory and British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli was responsible enough to never put personal ideology above people and country.

Interview with Sarah Palin

September 30, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

Hugh Hewitt has the transcript at Townhall.com.

Can’t They Send an Intern into the Archives?

September 30, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

Bob Owens explains how the NY Times and the rest of the MSM are allowing a candidate’s ties to an unrepentant terrorist — despite being well documented — to remain unreported.

Bonnie and Nixon

September 30, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Nixonland Nitpicks | 3 Comments 

Ed Driscoll sent me his superbly produced and informative video that builds upon Rick Perlstein’s enthusiasm for the emergence of the new left and “rejection of the traditional culture for trash cinema.” Perlstein’s praise of the film Bonnie and Clyde (1967) is no different:

“It made an argument about vitality and virtue vs. staidness and morality that was completely new, that resonated with young people in a way that made no sense to old people. Just the idea that the outlaws were the good guys and the bourgeois householders were the bad guys–you cannot underestimate how strange and fresh that was.”

Driscoll’s video also includes a rarely scene footage of Bobby Kennedy’s leftist radicalism that symbolizes the fusion between New Deal liberalism and new left politics.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Another Roosevelt

September 30, 2008 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Book Review, Democratic Party, Economic issues, Election 2008, History, Presidents, U.S. History | 2 Comments 

As the recently proposed massive financial bailout plan apparently needs and awaits a rescue itself, we are now witnessing the all-too-familiar practice of political posturing. Lou Grant, the curmudgeon television producer played by Ed Asner, who ruled the newsroom on the old Mary Tyler Moore Show, once remarked that, “leadership is the art of delegating blame.” If that is true, then we have no leadership shortage in Washington these days.

But of course, it is not true. Leadership is about taking ownership, responsibility, and the initiative. This is why leadership and politics make the strangest of bedfellows; there is no natural affinity.

History, though, has shown that politicians can actually get away with saying much without doing much of anything. In fact, smart politicians have practiced this kind of cynical gamesmanship for quite sometime. Even so-called great leaders, those with names that have become synonymous with recovery, healing, and change, were skilled in the art of politically motivated non-commitment.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was master of the method.

When John F. Kennedy was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 1960, the path to victory wound through the country roads of West Virginia. It was his first real test – especially about whether or not his Catholicism would be an issue. He went head to head against Hubert Humphrey and he won. Two things brought about that victory: his father’s money and the presence of Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. It was a magic name. The people still saw FDR as a savior, and any connection with the great man was enough to win a vote.

Of course, now we know – we really do – that Mr. Roosevelt really did not do all that much to lastingly solve problems and may, in fact, have prolonged the Great Depression. But stubborn things like facts have always fought uphill battles against myth-driven hero worship.

Real leaders take risks. They understand that they cannot actually claim credit for something that works out, unless they are prepared to accept blame when it doesn’t. Mr. McCain alluded to this in his first debate with Mr. Obama – citing those two notes written by General Eisenhower on the eve of D-Day in 1944. Ike knew a thing or two about stakes.

Politicians, in contrast to authentic leaders, are all about the credit – but tend to head for the hills when there is the possibility of blame. President Kennedy talked in the days after the Bay of Pigs fiasco about how victory has many fathers, while defeat is an orphan. Rare is the politician who can step up and admit a mistake (by the way, Mr. Kennedy’s approval numbers soared after his moment of candor – people actually respond favorably to that kind of transparency).

FDR was the master of keeping his distance from risky situations. And possibly his playbook is being studied today. If so, we may all be in harm’s way.

Franklin Roosevelt beat Herbert Hoover in November of 1932 by nearly 12 million votes. The economy was, of course, the overriding issue. Since October of 1929, the nation (and the world) had increasingly languished in what had always before been called a panic. Hoover thought the word “panic” sent the wrong political message, so he saw to it that the more benign term (so he thought) “depression” would be widely used to describe the situation.

FDR out-campaigned Hoover – he had the moment and the message. He promised that happy days would be in the land again. People voted for that. Understandably.

Much is made of Roosevelt’s first 100 days in the White House, and his frenetic legislative agenda designed to address the crisis and calm the nation’s fears. This period is still seen today as the benchmark for presidential leadership in a crisis.

But often overlooked is what FDR did, or better didn’t do, during the four months between his election in November and the inauguration, which took place back then on March 4th.

In his largely complimentary book, The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, Jonathan Alter concedes that a recovery of sorts, already underway in 1932, was negatively impacted by the election:

“If Roosevelt’s election did not by itself halt recovery, it clearly contributed to a period of drift that worsened a grim economic situation. Uncertainty over what the new president might do shook confidence. The following year, FDR’s agricultural secretary, Henry Wallace, concluded in an economic report that the economy had been recovering slightly in the fall of 1932, but that the ‘long interval’ between the election and the Inauguration ‘proved unsettling to business’ and was an important factor in impending recovery.”

One issue that rocked the already enfeebled economy had to do with the repayment (or lack thereof) of Great War debt to us by Britain and France. Hoover had earlier granted those nations a one-year moratorium, but they had payments due to us by December 15, 1932. Just days after the election, our former and eventual allies announced that they wanted to miss that payment. This news rocked the nation.

Herbert Hoover reached out to Franklin Roosevelt for help. We would call this “bi-partisanship” today. We might even expect it. We might think that politicians – even opponents – could put country first and work the problem.

Hoover and FDR did meet on November 22nd, but it was clear that the president-elect did not want to help his predecessor or, for that matter, the country. The next day, he told reporters, “it’s not my baby.” He basically saw the issue as a problem for Hoover and the lame duck Congress.

Franklin Roosevelt was determined to do nothing to help Herbert Hoover, even if that meant the worsening of the economic crisis. If things got worse, then so be it – he would be more of a hero when he turned it all around. As Alter suggests:

“He understood that the lower Hoover and the country slid, the better he would look upon assuming office. This theatrical and psychological insight was essential to his conjuring act when he finally took the oath.”

There were, in fact, several attempts – always initiated by Hoover – to bring the popular president-elect into processes dealing with the economy. But Roosevelt clearly had no interest in participating.

Even men who would eventually serve FDR with distinction as part of his inner circle were perplexed and disturbed by the president-elect’s passivity and seeming inability to understand the issues. Henry Stimson, who would eventually serve in Roosevelt’s cabinet, was “contemptuous of Roosevelt’s failure to comprehend the subtleties” of dealing with the debt repayment issue.

Tommy “the Cork” Corcoran, who would become a Roosevelt troubleshooter, was “angry and dismayed” about FDR’s unwillingness to partner with Hoover during the crisis, adding, “Roosevelt seemed a villainous fool to me.”

In February, less than a month before he would take the oath of office, Franklin Roosevelt basked in the Caribbean sun during a twelve-day cruise on Vincent Astor’s massive 263-foot yacht (one of the largest in the world). This, while at home, banks were closing in record numbers. The president reached out to the president-elect again and again. Still Roosevelt would not work with Hoover or do anything to help.

Raymond Moley was an original member of Roosevelt’s famed “brain trust.” He also wrote much of the president’s first inaugural address. He later broke with FDR. During correspondence years later with Herbert Hoover, Moley wrote:

“I feel when you [Hoover] asked him [FDR] on February 18th to cooperate in the banking situation that he either did not realize how serious the situation was or that he preferred to have conditions deteriorate and gain for himself the entire credit for the rescue operation.”

The rest is legendary, of course. Franklin Roosevelt told us that we had nothing to fear except “fear itself.” And everyone lived happily ever after.

The problem with that scenario is that the Great Depression did not go away after being attacked by Roosevelt’s alphabet-soup initiatives. In fact, his policies grew the government – as opposed to growing the economy – and undermined business. The truth of the matter is that FDR prolonged the crisis and saw to it that the country would take a long time to turn around.

I think the lesson for us today is that we need to fear those who, in times of crisis, seem to have an aversion to political risk.

Featured Articles — September 30, 2008

September 30, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes from Home and Abroad:

Putin Wants to Follow Peter the Great By Carlos Alberto Montaner
Russian ships no longer carry the names of heroic comrades but rather of figures from imperial history. As I write this column, the nuclear cruiser Peter the Great is sailing toward Latin America heading a flotilla of four imposing vessels. Some ships from the Venezuelan Navy will meet up with them to conduct joint maneuvers. Moscow wants to send a bill to Washington for the latter’s support of Georgia, as well as for the independence of Kosovo.

Deregulation Not to Blame for Financial Woes by Peter J. Wallison
In the debate on Sept. 26, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama argued that the current crisis in the financial markets is the result of Republican deregulation.

A job for the right woman By Wesley Pruden
If there’s still room under the bus where Barack Obama throws his discards – his white granny, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn and even Hillary Clinton – that’s the right place for Nancy Pelosi.

No one’s clean in this mess By Jonah Goldberg
Democrats and Republicans must share the blame for the failure to pass a $700-billoin bailout plan.

The Bailout Defeat: A Political Credibility Crisis By Michael Scherer
Nearly every major political leader in America supported the $700 billion financial bailout bill. The President of the United States. The Vice President. The Treasury Secretary. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Democratic and Republican nominees for president. The Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and the Senate. All of them said the same thing. Vote yes.

Too Much Money Is Beyond Legal Reach By Robert M. Morgenthau
New York-based funds are abusing ’secrecy jurisdictions.’

He Could Have Easily Shaken Things Up

September 29, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Election 2008 | 4 Comments 

“I think he worked very hard, and I think he did a commendable job.” – former Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco (D) on Governor Bobby Jindal’s performance during Hurricane Gustav.

In her Pajamas Media article, Bridget Johnson of the Rocky Moutain News thinks the smarter choice for McCain’s VEEP would have been Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Like Gov. Palin he would have brought youth and energy to the ticket, except with a substantial policy portfolio that includes:

• Homeland Security, as a member of the corresponding House Committee and as vice-chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attacks.
• Education, as President of the Louisiana State University system.
• Healthcare, as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation, Director of the National Bipartisan Commission on Medicare, an as Budget Director for the Louisiana Department of Health an Hospitals.
• Business and the Economy, as a consultant for Fortune 500 Companies.
• Emergency Management, as Governor of Louisiana during Hurricane season.

The Ivy League-educated and Oxford Rhodes scholar also has the propensity for governmental reform and has demonstrated himself as slasher of wasteful spending. Early this year, he delivered on his promise to veto pay increases for legislators and has established some of the toughest ethics laws in the nation.

The reasons Sen. McCain overlooked him were obvious. First, Gov. Jindal may have been a liability during hurricane season; the MSM would have intensely and incessantly focused on his performance. Second, though he would have revved up the conservative base, his candidacy couldn’t have created the positive effect of pulling women voters from Sen. Clinton’s camp.

Nevertheless, he would have personified Sen. McCain’s maverick status as a young and unconventional pick, and his leadership in the “eye of the storm” (Hurricane Gustav) would have overturned the conventional wisdom of bureaucratic red tape, and would have effectively reduced Sen. Obama’s “politics of hope” as a mere pipe dream. Jindal is already leading in reality.

“The Smoot-Hawleys Of The 21st Century”

September 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Economic issues, Republican Party | Leave a Comment 

David Brooks on the Hoover Caucus’s role in defeating the bipartisan bill to rescue and revitalize credit markets:

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.

Rove Defends The Hoover Caucus

September 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Economic issues, Election 2008, Republican Party | Leave a Comment 

On Fox News tonight, Karl Rove joined those blaming Speaker Pelosi for today’s debacle. It seems GOP House members didn’t like her mean speech. They saw her letting her closest Democratic colleagues vote no while they were expected to vote yes. They were afraid to go back to their districts after voting for the bill. Poor GOP House members!

Here, from the New York Times, are the facts:

In the end, only 65 Republicans — just one-third of those voting — backed the plan despite personal pleas from President Bush and encouragement from their presidential nominee, Senator John McCain. By contrast, 140 Democrats, or 60 percent, voted in favor, many after voicing grave misgivings. Their nominee, Senator Barack Obama, also backed the bill.

Every member’s office was evidently flooded with angry calls about the bill this week. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats nonetheless lined up with President Bush, Secretary Paulson, and the nominees. Having done the bidding of the President she despises, their leader understandably wanted to get her political shots in. Was any politician in the chamber really surprised? In contrast, Republicans defied their President and as well as their nominee.

Members of the Hoover Caucus had the opportunity to do something today for the American people and their Presidential candidate. They failed on both counts, and here’s why:

“People’s re-elections played into this to a much greater degree than I would have imagined,” said Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, a former member of the Republican leadership who is retiring this year and voted for the plan.

Some GOP members may also be operating under Ed Rollins rules – let McCain lose and rebuild the party under the next Ronald Reagan. That good work should ideally be done in an authentic wilderness setting. If they don’t pass the bill later this week, throw the bums out.

Perfect Songs: “Find The River” (1992)

September 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Music, Perfect Songs | Leave a Comment 

R.E.M.

Ode To Joe

September 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Election 2008, Republican Party | Leave a Comment 

When Sen. McCain named Gov. Palin, I speculated that McCain might’ve been thinking that if the tilt to GOP conservatives didn’t work, it would at least teach them a lesson. As the House’s Hoover Caucus threatens the bipartisan bill to rescue the credit markets and recharge the economy, I wonder if he isn’t already regretting listening to advisers who argued that he shouldn’t name the leading independent politician of the age, Sen. Lieberman.

We’ve learned today that Richard Nixon was right: Many conservatives would rather be right than President. The Hoover Caucus’s intransigence, its defiance of both McCain and President Bush, are improving Obama’s chances by the hour. Since Ed Rollins has talked openly about rebuilding the GOP under someone other than McCain, we at least have to consider the possibility that some are torpedoing his candidacy on purpose. Either way, McCain now owes them nothing. He could still win by envisioning and proclaiming a fresh center-right vision, repudiating conservative obstructionists while reaching for national security independents and even some Democrats. That would’ve been Lieberman’s song to sing.

It’s All About the Fundamentals

September 29, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

Despite any hope of another promising debate performance for Sen.  McCain, it won’t change the fact that the race’s dynamics favor Sen. Obama. As a questioner in the first 1984 debate between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale, Fred Barnes puts this in historical perspective:

The fundamentals of the race remain. And while they aren’t nearly as daunting as those facing Mr. Mondale in 1984, they certainly favor Mr. Obama. The economy is weak. The president is unpopular. It’s a change, not a status quo, election. The surge has worked, but the war in Iraq is hardly a campaign plus. The political cycle points to a Democratic takeover. Democratic voter registration is up. Republican registration is down. Republicans trail Democrats in party identification.

All of these factors put a drag on Mr. McCain’s bid to win the White House. But the largest drag is the crisis in financial markets that erupted six weeks before Election Day. As the crisis has lingered, Mr. Obama’s lead over Mr. McCain has grown almost daily in polls. Mr. McCain’s decision to briefly suspend his campaign last week and play a role in Washington’s rescue effort didn’t appear to help his cause significantly.

But debates aren’t likely to, either. In 1960, the decisive factor in John Kennedy’s election was a surge in the Catholic vote, not his debate with Richard Nixon. In 1976, Gerald Ford muffed a debate question on Poland, but he probably would have lost to Jimmy Carter anyway. Mike Dukakis in 1988 and George H.W. Bush in 1992 had poor debates, but that wasn’t why they lost. Al Gore’s sighs and clumsy attempts at intimidation in the 2000 debates with George W. Bush may have cost the Democrat the election, but that’s arguable at best. That election was extraordinarily close. Any number of factors, particularly voting irregularities in Florida, might have changed the outcome.

We know from 20-odd Democratic primary debates and last week’s general election debate that Mr. Obama isn’t anything like Mr. Gore. He’s calm and disciplined. Amazingly for a first-time presidential candidate, Mr. Obama has made no big mistakes, only a few small ones that turned out to be inconsequential.

Hey, Guys: After ‘32, FDR Served For 12 Years

September 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Economic issues, Republican Party | 1 Comment 

From Daniel Gross in “Slate,” evidence that the Ed Rollins plan may be in play among the Hoover Caucus in the House — sink the bailout, lose the election, and rebuild the GOP on the strong shoulders of the next Ronald Reagan (whoever that is):

[I]t’s clear that the chaos is poison for the top of the [GOP] ticket. McCain’s poll numbers have eroded throughout September as the financial crisis picked up pace. The volatility in the markets doesn’t seem to be doing much for the more volatile candidate in the race. Every time the market falls a few hundred points, Obama seems to pick up support. On Intrade, where the price of McCain’s presidential contracts have slipped to their lowest levels in months, traders now give Obama a 60 percent chance of winning.

In general, I’ve found a lot of the analogies between the present situation and the Great Depression to be way off. But there’s one area in which the analogy might hold true. Just as happened in 1932, it’s possible that the Republicans’ incompetence and bullheadedness in managing a financial crisis could lead to Democrats controlling both the White House and Congress.

Hoover Caucus On Welfare

September 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Economic issues, Republican Party | 1 Comment 

MSNBC:

[M]ore than two-thirds of [House] Republicans balked at spending so much taxpayer money just before the Nov. 4 elections.

Heck yes — at a time like this, if you’ve got a government job, you want to hold on tight.

 

McCain’s Future Bounce

September 29, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

Much has been written about the demise of the McCain campaign. Sen. Obama’s so-called victory in Friday’s debate, the tumult of financial markets, and Gov. Palin’s media incompetency. However, Hugh Hewitt tells us to watch as the markets settle, and for conservatives to rally as Gov. Palin emerges out from the MSM pile-on in Thursday night’s VP debate with Sen. Biden.

Did McCain Ever Confront The Hoover Caucus?

September 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Economic issues, Republican Party | Leave a Comment 

The New York Times:

Some Republicans blamed Ms. Pelosi for a speech before the vote that disdained President Bush’s economic policies, and did so, in the opinion of the speaker’s critics, in too partisan a way.

“Clearly, there was something lacking in the leadership here,” said Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia.

Democrats, meanwhile, blamed the Republicans for not coming up with enough support for the measure on their side of the aisle.

Why the Speaker couldn’t put together more Democratic votes, I don’t know. There will be time enough to make the case about her ineffectiveness. But the celebrated Rep. Cantor doesn’t have to look that far afield for poor leadership. It’s appalling that 133 Republicans voted against the bill (only 65 voted aye). Are Republicans really whining and blaming Rep. Pelosi’s speech for their no votes? Was the House Hoover Caucus still fearful about creeping socialism? Were they dissing Sen. McCain or perhaps following the Ed Rollins script: Sink the bailout and lose the election so they can go in search of the new Gipper?

During his dramatic intervention in these talks, did McCain ever take the fight to the Hoover Caucus? Did he ever say, “You guys have been making my live miserable for years, including by insisting that I don’t come up to the standards of that paragon of fiscal probity, Ronald Reagan, who added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. Your future commander-in-chief says shut up, sit down, and vote aye”? If not, he may have failed a crucial leadership test.

The Trouble With Google

September 29, 2008 by Joshua Treviño | Filed Under American Politics, Technology | 2 Comments 

A perennial frustration for conservatives in California is the dilatory attitude of Silicon Valley toward entrepreneurialism, free markets, and limited government. Partly this is cultural — few of the Silicon Valley set fall into anything resembling a conservative demographic, being (broadly speaking) young, ethnically diverse, irreligious, and, well, Californian. Partly, too, is it the natural effect of a self-perceived revolutionary nature, which rarely lends itself to a natural restraint or the reinforcement of tradition. The technology sector, and specifically the information-technology sector, is a natural home to those who think in transformational terms — and so it is unsurprising that they would approach all subjects in the same vein. Having benefitted from — indeed, being the creation of — state restraint and markets, it does not follow from this that they see any need to preserve or defense those things.

This is a generalization, and as such there are numerous counterexamples. Yet even those skew toward what may charitably be described as libertarianism. This is not necessarily a purely political libertarianism: the principle of absolute personal liberation extends much beyond. So, from personal experience, a dot-com millionaire who funds a campaign for limited government may abruptly shift his money toward the development of his personal space pod; or an industry eminence may maintain simultaneous memberships in a stodgy financiers’ lunch club and a free-love cult; or a noted telecom expert may refocus his efforts on achieving physical immortality. These things actually happen, and they speak to the fundamental premise of much of Silicon Valley — a belief in the power of smashing and revolt, so long as those things may be bought.

All this is by way of explaining the (on the surface) perplexing decision of Google toendorse the defeat of California’s Proposition 8. (In brief, Proposition 8 restores the state’s recognition of traditional marriage, which was overturned by judicial fiat some months ago. I will vote for it, but here’s the other side.) Google needs no introduction — you’re reading this online, so you know of it — except in the policy sphere, where it comes as a surprise to some that it is a decidedly left-wing organization. There is no need to document this in full here; readers are urged to check out Google’s own public-policy blog, wherein the company’s goals are laid forth to varying degrees of clarity. I was privileged to have an extended exchange with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, courtesy of RedState, at the RNC several weeks ago, and we sparred a bit over one of Google’s most prominent excursions into leftist policy advocacy — its endorsement of a regulatory framework to enforce “net neutrality.” Schmidt, as per the company line, argued that this was a purely altruistic endeavor of Google’s; and I argued that it was pure self-interest designed to head off future Google competitors. Neither convinced the other.

The truth is that we were both right to a certain extent. I have no doubt that Schmidt, as a canny and accomplished businessman, grasps Google’s self-interest in statist advance quite well. The extension of regulatory power on issues like net neutrality, public broadband, et al., tends to solidify existing market positions, which is extremely appealing to Google’s business-minded leadership for obvious reasons. Also of note is that as a major advocate of the new regulatory structures, Google would play a major role in shaping them, inevitably redounding to the company’s benefit. Had Microsoft been able to accomplish something similar circa 1995, the IT world would be quite different. Fortunately for Google, though less fortunately for our technology sector, Google’s leadership now is vastly more savvy and appealing than Microsoft’s leadership was then.

On the other hand, there is also the strain, represented by Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin — and probably the majority of Google’s technical community — that genuinely believes in the company’s social mission, as exemplified in its vapid “Don’t Be Evil” maxim. The likes of Schmidt may be too canny to buy into this mode of thinking, but they understand that it provides moral and media cover for their aims, and tout it accordingly. That’s the upside: the downside, of sorts, is that the company becomes a vehicle for the satisfaction of whatever half-formed moralistic impulse Page, Brin, & Co. may be afflicted with at the moment.

Thus the public opposition to Proposition 8. Brin, in justifying Google’s decision to weigh in, writes that its passage would have a “chilling and discriminatory effect … on many of our employees.” It’s putting it kindly to say there’s no evidence for this, and a more vigorous response might involve an assessment of the actual data on homosexual employment and social satisfaction at Google before and after the California Supreme Court invalidated traditional marriage in the state. Again, to put it kindly, the strong probability is that there is no meaningful difference. But this is window dressing: the Google founders do this because the Google founders wish it — and because they see Google not as a technology company as such, but as a motive force for revolutionary change in multiple spheres.

Thwarting these ambitions is not as daunting as it seems. Contrary to the call of some conservatives, there is no need to boycott Google. (One might as well boycott products from China, or things with plastic in them, for all its ubiquity.) Google’s starry-eyed leftists may see it as a motive force for change, and its clear-eyed corporate leadership may see it as an emerging monopolist, but what is objectively true is that Google is a market entity subject to market forces. Google’s products are often the best on the market, and they are just as often free — the time bomb in its business model, and a direct result of “Don’t Be Evil.” In time, the contradiction will resolve itself.

McCain Needs To Talk About McCain All The Time

September 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

With five weeks to go, the structural Democratic lead has finally emerged — or, rather, reemerged. Remember that this was always supposed to be a Democratic year, that the issues of Iraq and the economy would doom any Republican, that the hard-fought Democratic primary was tantamount to selecting the winner of the general election. With Sens. McCain and Obama seemingly tied all these weeks, many wondered why Obama wasn’t ahead. They blamed racism and McCain’s negative campaigning, overlooking Obama’s negative campaigning and those planning to vote for Obama because of race. More convincingly, they blamed the rabbits McCain kept pulling out of his hat, from the Palin nomination to his dramatic if apparently unavailing intervention in the bailout talks. Whatever you think of him, McCain has been more interesting to watch lately.

In their first debate, McCain and Obama seemed finally to get down to business. It was a worthy exchange between candidates as evenly matched as Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960. Though pundits were divided, Joshua Trevino has shown that those polled considered Obama the winner, hence his eight-point lead in the Gallup daily tracking poll.

The discrepancy between elites’ and voters’ impressions bears some study. Professional and self-appointed commentators do style and scorekeeping. Did McCain err in failing to look at Obama, Obama in calling his opponent John? Some think McCain put Obama away by his careful evisceration of his position on the surge, others, including Trevino, that McCain was devastated by Obama’s critique of his support for the war in 2003.

Politics so closely resembles sports that commentators may be excused for filling in their scorecards. But millions of listeners and readers are paying more attention to their checkbooks and mutual fund statements. If you’re paid to talk on television or type on a computer, you’re probably better off than most Americans, less likely to be suffering in the economy, and marginally less likely to have a member of your family at risk in Iraq or Afghanistan (please note that I said “marginally”; that last assumption would have to be tested, and my apologies in advance to anyone to whom it doesn’t apply). You may have great sympathy for the poor or the middle class, but you probably don’t number among them.

Those who do want a President who understands and responds to their fears and hopes. It’s hard to imagine people looking for someone to solve their most pressing problems opting for a younger over an older man any more than he would pick a surgeon on the basis of age. Voters also keep electing aging people to Congress and other offices. So I’m not impressed by the generational change argument. Nor would the preponderance of economically anxious people be especially worried about the candidates’ race. (Ditto the surgeon analogy.) Someone selecting the architect of a prudent Iraq exit won’t consider whether he looked at his opponent in a debate. The candidates’ style or oratorical ability probably won’t be decisive, either. Just ask the dashing and eloquent Adlai Stevenson.

In November, voters will choose the candidate who they believe will protect their livelihood and country and those in harm’s way, which is why they’re probably listening to little beyond the substance of what the candidates say. Based on polling after the first debate, do voters think that candidate is Obama? Perhaps, but I see it more in the context of pervasive and longstanding skepticism about Republican governance.

On Friday night, when the general election campaign got serious, a lot of smoke and fog melted away. We see the electorate in stark relief and as it has been ever since the midterm elections of 2006: Leaning Democratic. Nothing voters heard in the debate changed the picture. It would have been surprising if it had. It was always going to be an uphill battle for the GOP. Its usual play, continuing to try to discredit Obama, won’t work. McCain’s only chance is to communicate calmly if relentlessly about why he is different from George W. Bush and what his specific plans are on the economy, Iraq, and foreign policy in general. In the next two debates, not only should he not look at Barack Obama. I’m not sure he should even mention him. He won’t have time.

Next Page »