Race and Democrats

Susan Estrich, writing for Fox News, tries to be courageously honest about the Democratic primary:

No one doubts, or at least no one who is honest does, that both racism and sexism come into play as people decide between Clinton and Obama, but could it be that people are more willing to admit that they won’t vote for the woman than that they won’t vote for the black?

If this is happening even among us good Democrats, what does that say about Obama’s strength in a general election? Not pretty questions. Not a fair world.

Hmm.

Is race/gender/shoe size the ONLY reason why a “good Democrat” would vote for a candidate? There couldn’t possibly be other reasons, right? Couldn’t it be that some people think that Obama might be a tad inexperienced (Hillary, after all, has been married to a president), or couldn’t it be that some voters actually trust Hillary more than Obama?

OK… maybe it is all about race. But what does that say about the Democratic party? Have they swallowed so much of their own identity politik that they are no longer able to see any other part of the world? Are race and gender the only issues that matter any more? Is the Democratic primary now nothing more than a race to the bottom to see who can claim to be the lowliest victim? It seems so… depressing.

Jonah Goldberg has a good article up addressing the same issue,

The Republican party is a mess, absolutely. Conservatives are sorting out what they believe, what heresies they can tolerate and on which principles they will not bend. At times this argument is loud, ugly and unfortunate. But you know what? At least it’s an argument about something. On the Democratic side, if you strip away the crass appeals to identity politics, the emotional pandering and the helium-infused rhetoric, you’re pretty much left with a campaign about nothing.

But put the race-baiting aside, and I find another insidious sentiment in Estrich’s column.

If this is happening even among us good Democrats…

“Then what hope do you troglodyte republicans have?” Democrats = Good. Everyone else = Racist Misogynist Pigs. Nice, that.

I don’t live in a perfect world, so I don’t expect much honesty or rationality from politicians. But I would dearly like it if more people approached politics as a competition between different ideas and not just a high-school charm competition. Ha. I know… silly me.

There’s this gem: Che posters in Obama offices. It would be like discovering a big David Duke poster in a McCain office. (For more on Che, check this out.) It says volumes about the kind of ideological support that Obama is generating. I’m not saying that Obama aspires to be a mass-murdering despot, or that, like Che, he wants to make homosexuality a capital crime, or that he believes that cultivating an all-consuming hatred of the enemy is a political virtue. But maybe his supporters do? You know, “us good Democrats?”

Or maybe not. Maybe, like Che, he’s dreamy… and that’s as much as thought as goes into it.

Super Tuesday

It’s Super Tuesday. There’s a very good chance that we’ll know who the nominees are tonight… or maybe not. Personally, I’m hoping that the day ends with everyone tied. That’s because I’m still hoping that at least one party will have a meaningful convention, where the nominee is decided in some arcane, decidedly undemocratic fashion.

Partly that’s because it would be fun to watch. Just imagine for a moment that Obama and Clinton go into the convention in a dead heat and that the DNC ends up nominating Clinton by a wide margin. Where is the Democratic convention this year? It’s not Chicago is it? Intrade has Clinton at 51.7 and Obama at 48.

On the other side of the aisle, Intrade has McCain at 89. and Romney. I truly hope that Romney does well and forces the GOP to decide at convention, then there’s some small hope that they could nominate someone else. I’m on record as not believing that McCain could ever win the GOP nomination, and part of me still finds it hard to believe that he’s running in first. (It’s as if Rosie O’Donnel was back on the View — sure, you can see how it could happen, but she’s so angry and weird and she pissed so many people off…. Just like McCain.)

So we’ve come to this: McCain, Romney, Obama, or Clinton.

They’re all bad. Of course, some are far, far worse than others, but they’re all poor choices. And what’s most depressing is that they seem to be the front-runner because they’re the worst possible choices.

Mitt Romney will say anything to anyone at any time. He’s a man of your convictions, just tell him what they are and he’ll discover a passionate commitment to those causes for as long as he’s in the room. I’d say he’s a good looking Zelig, but that seems too kind. He’s not; he’s a Mormon John Kerry.

Obama is charismatic and oh, so very dreamy. He sounds great, he looks good, and he represents “change.” That’s powerful stuff, “change.” It makes us all quivery with excitement. He’s different. Well, his domestic policy isn’t so much different than Hillary’s as sort of really kind of the same, but don’t pay attention to that. Obama represents “change.” And I guess he is after a change of sorts. Bomb your allies, make peace with your enemies; that would be a change. Seriously. He wants to invade Pakistan and have peace talks with Iran…. Think about that for a moment. I mean, really think about it. For all of her faults, and there are plenty, Hillary isn’t nuts. Obama’s foreign policy is nuts… no it’s worse than nuts, it’s dangerous.

McCain is a fighter. He’s tough. He was tortured. His foreign policy isn’t nuts, it’s sensible, reasoned, and well thought out. I trust McCain when it comes to war and terrorism. The problem is, McCain isn’t so fond of the constitution. See, the thing is… free speech is really, really important. It really is. It’s the lifeblood of democracy. John McCain has done more to kill free speech in this country than any other politician in recent memory. Add to that the terrifying awfulness of his anti-profit populist pandering and he’s…. well, he’s scary too.

Clinton is… well, she’s Hillary Clinton. She’s Bill’s wife. Now, I don’t so much mind the sleazy back-room politics, or the cheap demagoguery, or the win-at-all-costs mentality. But the pay-to-play sliminess of the Clintons’ political life is appalling… the earmarks, the favored legislation, the gentle whispers of encouragement in the right place. There’s just too much to ignore. I will give Hillary credit for understanding foreign policy better than any of the other Democratic nominees, but anyone should see that as damning with faint praise. The biggest problem is that Hillary is a tyrant. Her plan for universal health care? She wants to make it illegal to be uninsured. That’s her solution. Insure everyone by criminalizing the uninsured.

That’s why I’m hoping today’s votes don’t clarify anything. That’s why I’m hoping for some shady back-room deal at a convention.

Because that’s the only hope left.

Update:

I just came across this post, Three Reasons to Vote for Obama. Needless to say, I disagree. But in particular, I think this passage illustrates the worst kind of political thought, and the primary reason why I emphatically do not support Obama:

…if you’re a moderate who just wants to see the government make some damn progress on these issues at last, it’s a reason to give him a shot. Maybe his programs won’t work, but on the other hand, maybe they will — and on some of these issues, aren’t we at the point where it’s better to try something than continue to do nothing? I’m well aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and that good intentions aren’t necessarily enough (the road to Hell, etc.). But it’s not like Obama is proposing anything all that radical, and if given a choice between eight more years of triangulation and gridlock (Clinton) vs. eight years of a different approach (Obama), doesn’t the latter seem at least a little bit appealing?

It’s just not enough to acknowledge that you might be wrong and then dismiss concerns about the merits of your approach with a plea to “just do something.” Fixing problems means fixing problems. It doesn’t mean just trying different things until you find one that sticks. A bad solution isn’t just a hiccup, it makes the problem worse. You don’t solve Social Security by increasing taxes, that makes the problem worse. You can’t lower the cost of health care by mandating universal insurance coverage (that will raise costs). You can’t improve access to health care by rationing it, you can’t improve security by bombing your allies, and you can’t cut the deficit by increasing spending.

“Maybe his programs won’t work, but on the other hand, maybe they will.”

That’s a complete abdication; it’s ignorant voting. Public Policy isn’t guesswork, it’s not alchemy or magic. There’s no secret or special solution that we just have to hit on. Some proposals are better than others — some plans work, others don’t. But it’s not random.

Obama’s platform is “change” but change for the mere sake of change is an idea that appeals only to the lazy, the reckless, and the foolish. It’s the hallmark of adolescence, but it’s not the hallmark of good governance.

Update2:

Michael Chabon, a gifted novelist, has a column up today at the Washington Post stumping for Obama. I liked The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, but spinning a good yarn isn’t really the same as being president. Chabon seems to think otherwise:

To support Obama, we must permit ourselves to feel hope, to acknowledge the possibility that we can aspire as a nation to be more than merely secure or predominant. We must allow ourselves to believe in Obama, not blindly or unquestioningly as we might believe in some demagogue or figurehead but as we believe in the comfort we take in our families, in the pleasure of good company, in the blessings of peace and liberty, in any thing that requires us to put our trust in the best part of ourselves and others. That kind of belief is a revolutionary act. It holds the power, in time, to overturn and repair all the damage that our fear has driven us to inflict on ourselves and the world.

Chabon seems to be saying that by electing Obama, a nice man who speaks well and looks good, we elect a representative of our better nature. In Obama we find the candidate as we wish our candidates to be, and we should elect him becuase he represents what we aspire to be. In essence, Chabon is saying that Obama’s story is the right story. It’s a good story; a story of hope and rebirth and change and peace and repair and comfort and other things that feel warm and fuzzy.

I don’t dispute any of that. Obama is warm and fuzzy and I think he’s probably sincere in his fuzziness (unlike Edwards or Clinton or Romney). But the fact that he’s sincere doesn’t mean that he’s right. The problem isn’t that Obama is young or inexperienced or that he’s too hopeful… the problem is that Obama is wrong on too many the the important issues. His foreign policy is dangerous; his health care plan is costly, ineffective and ruinous; his Social Security plan will only make the problem worse; and his economic policies are built on empty populist rhetoric and simple demagoguery.

Don’t get me wrong, Clinton is no better. On many issues (like health care) she’s actually worse (and that’s saying something!). The problem is that neither of these two supporting articles (they’re representative of the kind of support that Obama is receiving) pay any attention whatsoever to the particulars of Obama’s policy’s, and that’s dangerous. Obama may be a man with a vision, but those who support him seem blinded.