Obama is a formidable candidate, but there's a perfect storm brewing. First, his huge, and at times unsettling, popularity: the throngs, the crowds, the fawning coverage. All of this would be good by itself, but when you couple it with Obama's inherent image of weakness it could be a major problem. By weakness I mean the inexperienced, naive, metrosexual, Demorat eurowimpy, post-masculine image that he deservedly has. Although conservatives automatically recoil from such a man, swing-voters will just be wary of it. Because Obama knows they will be wary, he'll be constantly trying to show gravitas, power, firmness, and masculinity. This in itself would not be a problem. I think the problem is that when you combine Obama's need to show power and firmness with his huge popularity it will be very difficult to not come off as cocky and elitist. It will be all the more difficult because he really is cocky and elitist.

In short, because of Obama's immense popularity, he's caught between appearing elitist, cocky, and too cool on the one hand, and naive, and weak on the other. If he weren't so wildly popular he'd find it easier to avoid appearing cocky. For this reason his popularity could be his undoing.

Obama is a formidable candidate, but there's a perfect storm brewing. First, his huge, and at times unsettling, popularity: the throngs, the crowds, the fawning coverage. All of this would be good by itself, but when you couple it with Obama's inherent image of weakness it could be a major problem. By weakness I mean the inexperienced, naive, metrosexual, Demorat eurowimpy, post-masculine image that he deservedly has. Although conservatives automatically recoil from such a man, swing-voters will just be wary of it. Because Obama knows they will be wary, he'll be constantly trying to show gravitas, power, firmness, and masculinity. This in itself would not be a problem. I think the problem is that when you combine Obama's need to show power and firmness with his huge popularity it will be very difficult to not come off as cocky and elitist. It will be all the more difficult because he really is cocky and elitist.

In short, because of Obama's immense popularity, he's caught between appearing elitist, cocky, and too cool on the one hand, and naive, and weak on the other. If he weren't so wildly popular he'd find it easier to avoid appearing cocky. For this reason his popularity could be his undoing.

For some reason the Mainstream Media are no longer hiding their biases. As the years go by, they are increasingly and openly partisan for leftist causes. Whether this is the result of the rise of a conservative voice as Rush Limbaugh believes, or other factors, I cannot predict that it will abate. That the media will be increasingly partisan is not a difficult prediction to make, but I've been wondering what the consumers of media would do.

I've finally decided that I believe that the rise of a polarized media will come too late to fulfill the conservative dream of informing and mobilizing a Nation whose natural inclinations are mostly conservative. Alas, I believe this silent, and inactive majority of conservative-leaning voters has finally come to an end and will consequently never be mobilized by a more fair exposure to the facts.

Where has this majority gone? It was slowly dissolved by long-term liberal domination of three of the four pillars of culture: entertainment, news media, and education. The fourth, religion, has been under heavy attack by liberals for dominance, and is insufficiently strong and insufficiently conservative at its core to maintain a large body of people whose culture is naturally conservative.

The best action that conservatives can take at this point is to aggressively pursue these commanding heights of culture--entertainment, news media, and education--as liberals did early in the last century. It is only by virtue of conservatism's inherent superiority that it will eventually triumph, but that superiority must be demonstrated and communicated. Entertainment, news media, and education are the places to do it.

Point: The received wisdom on the 1960 presidential election is that Kennedy's good looks combined with television to outdo a scruffy and sweaty Nixon. This seems to me to be a conclusion drawn from too little data: If young, fresh, good looking, debonair and sophisticated war hero-Kennedy can still only win the popular vote by a margin of approximately 100,000 votes against boring old fuddy-duddy Nixon, I'd say that being a fresh intersting face isn't as important as people think it is.

Counterpoint: On the other hand, Kennedy really didn't have a lot more going for him than all that charm. If a guy can win an election by just being young and debonair and heroic, and looking good on TV, than maybe it really is as important as people think it is.

Conclusion: It's not just being young and fresh and exciting that wins elections. Don't think Obama's invincible just because he's made a lot of people excited. Remember the eventual lack of dedication of the "Obama girl". His power may not be as vaporous as his rhetoric, but it's more vaporous than it looks.

I can't answer that question here. But I was having a conversation with my roommates about what it is not. This is a follow up to that conversation (by several months) that I thought worth publishing.

Ever since our conversation about racism I've been wanting to write some magnum opus essay on the subject. The problem with magna opera is that they can take a lot of time or become large enough in their would-be worker's mind that they become endlessly postponed. This ist he case with this one.

So just in case I never get to writing that one down, I'd like to extremely briefly write a couple thoughts.

The first opinion I have dominates about 65% of my issues with the usage of racism as a word and as an accusation. This is that there is something very unwise about letting anyone or any group be the sole definer of what is beyond-the-pale-offensive to that person or group. Obviously anyone can decide what will offend him, as can any group. But deciding what will offend me is not the same as deciding what you cannot do or say.

This is particularly true when there is significant economic incentive to put the line of offense to the advantage of one particular group. To be viewed as a victim of racism brings many advantages in our society. Is should go without saying then that there is significant incentive for any group to claim victim status. When the definition of racism is turned over to that very group, it doesn't take a cynic to to be concerned that the definition may tend to be too broad. It's worth nothing, additionally, that not only does this "victim spoils" system itself encourage both self-victimization (of those who benefit) and resentment (from those who don't) but that indulging it by allowing a potential-victim group to define what a victim is is gasoline on the fire.

Actually, I think that's my core problem with the word "racism". My other problems are derivatives. I insist that racism should have some element of genuine malice, cruel condescension, or at the very least should lead to significant disadvantages for its victims. To expand the definition to include all kinds of unintentional faux pas is to dilute the power of the word to condemn truly heinous views. Equally dangerous: to use it to prevent all inquiry into questions of racial differences is to disadvantage all races.

I'm grateful that it's coming into fashion to attack Obama's nebulous and floating rhetoric, but conservatives should remember that Obama does have a clear set of policy goals and a well defined agenda for the United States. The problem is that agenda is hard-left. Thus Obama has two kinds of supporters: Mushy-minded emotional types who vaguely liberal because the culture they consume is liberal, and intelligent, intellectually meticulous hard leftists. This latter group is only forced to join in the gasfest because if they, and Obama, spent a lot of time talking about policy, he'd be seen as an unpalatable hard leftist.

This observation isn’t just for the sake of seeing the truth clearly. It’s Obama’s biggest weakness. The hope business has become a leviathan not easily destroyed, but if conservatives talk of hope and optimism and improvement (not just change) in a hopeful, optimistic, and realistic manner, while simultaneously shifting the subject from rhetoric to policy they can slowly undermine the whole Obama campaign and have an excellent chance at the presidency.

Several people have suggested that it's wrong for adulterers' wives to stand by them as they publicly announce the betrayal. I have a problem with some of these complaints. First off, they all seem to think that such women would do best by divorcing their man rather than sticking by him. I think in many cases this is a mistake. For as terrible as betrayal is, it may cause less pain ultimately to remain together after adultery. It's not really a question of what the man deserves. Certainly he deserves to be dumped, every time.  It's a question of what is the least painful way of dealing with it. It may be best, not just for kids, but for wives, to merely threaten divorce, but not follow through.

Now that doesn't mean a woman needs to stand by her man as he announces the betrayal. I wouldn't stand by my wife in such an announcement, and I share the sense of repulsion that many commentators have on this practice. That said, a woman in such a situation is sure to be awash in a sea of emotions, and I cannot blame them for making such a decision. Although I oppose it, it may be that standing there is really the best therapy.

I'm reading Tony Blankley's recent column where he claims that the ineffectiveness of Hillary's attacks on Obama's experience prove that this is not one of his weak points. I believe Blankley is mistaken. The reason this charge is so ineffective coming from Hillary is because she has significant experience issues herself. McCain on the other hand, could make it an effective attack.

I've about had it with conservatives kid-gloves approach to Obama. It's not just that they don't want to attack him; they also seem to simply like him better than Hillary. This is a big mistake. Obama would be a nightmare in the general election and a nightmare as president. He's a left-wing extremist who's convinced a huge number of Americans that he's a reasonable and moderate man. That's an extremely dangerous combination and conservatives would do well to do everything possible and wise to take him down in favor of Hillary, then in favor of McCain if he wins the nomination.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-10-2008/0004752837&EDATE=

I'm not sure if they got the idea to say that from this blog, but it's not unfathomable since Mark Steyn linked to my blog on the eve of Super Tuesday. Thanks Mark!

if McCain wins the nomination. And I mean metaphorical blood. A McCain win with Huckabee participating as a spoiler will rend the conservative coalition in three parts, all of them angry at each other (particularly the losing parts). Of course the pundits will try to rally conservatives behind McCain, but it will be useless. Turnout among conservatives will be depressed in the general election and the Democrats and many of the independents who voted for McCain in the primary will abandon him. He’ll lose by a landslide. Republicans will lose both the Senate and the House for a Democratic monopoly. All of this will only increase rancor among conservatives.

 

If they were logical, they’d pull together and defeat the Democrats in the general election, but a McCain victory over Romney, and an Obama victory over hillary will demonstrate that Americans on both sides aren’t voting with their minds, but with their hearts. While logic would inspire conservatives to rally behind McCain, emotion will drive them to only recriminations and anger.

 

This was conservatives’ last chance. For demographic reasons I outline in the previous post, conservatism is doomed on the 40-year scale. The only chance was for a really good conservative leader to be elected and make a Reaganesque impression on the country that would delay the liberal fate. If Romney is defeated tomorrow, that will not happen, and tomorrow will live in infamy as a monumental defeat for conservatism.

I put this under campaigns and elections, but it's far bigger than that. I think the conservative movement is in serious trouble for the medium term. I have believed this for a long time, but it is only the recent events that inspire me to write it on this blog. First I'll discuss the long term.

First, demography is poised to destroy conservatism in a devastating triple threat. The baby boomers will start retiring, and will probably shift a little to the left in the process. Second, Mexican immigrants will most likely end up being pretty leftist. Finally, years of liberals running their own private indoctrination camps through the American education system have finally taken their toll and are churning out reliably liberal kids who will inevitably come of age. Not enough of them are conservatives and not enough of them will be mugged by reality to convert to conservatism. It is ultimately these three factors that threaten to sink conservatism for at least a couple decades.

Recent debates about the future of the Republican party only highlight this problem. Note that there is tremendous support among many conservatives for "moderate" positions, while the Democratic movement has actually shifted left. This is ultimately a reflection of a leftward lurch in the American populous.

By their fruits ye shall know them, and conservatism will survive in the long term because of its inherent superiority but those fruits will not bear fruit in America for 20 years. The only thing that might discourage a significant leftward shift for America is the bad fruits of leftism that may increasingly be harvested in Europe. In this sense, Europe could return the favor America did in liberating it from Nazism and Communism.

David Brooks Wrote an intersting Column in the NYT on Tuesday: link

I think he is totally wrong. I’m sick and tired of all the talk that the Republicans are doomed in the presidential race. I bet they’ll be routed in congress but that Romney will win the presidency. Why? To put it simply, Hillary is viewed as a harpy, and Obama is a naïve and experienceless kid. While the electorate hasn’t shown signs that they’d sink him for that, I think they will. I think that competence will be a major issue in the presidential election. The people will “date” the exciting candidate, but in the end, they’ll marry someone less risky. That desire for competent leader will work heavily in Romney’s favor.

 

As for Brooks’ suggestion that the electorate leans left. That may be true, but the independents will take a smart, competent leader over a left-leaning, but dislikeable candidate like Hillary or Obama. Furthermore the only specific things Brooks cites are minor issues: If the electorate values authenticity so much why did Gore and Kerry almost win the election? As for the Hispanic vote, Brooks isn’t accounting for the anti-illegal immigration vote, which will at least cancel the Hispanic hostility out. Finally, Brooks overstates the disadnantage Romney has due to the allegedly left-leaning electorate: The Democrats may outdemocrat Romney on healthcare, but he will present and excellent and more conservative alternative. Voters support Democrat approaches to corruption by double digit margins? What’s he talking about? Same goes for Iraq. As for economy, that’s the only issue he’s probably right on, Still, I think as a transcendentally good businessman and manager, Romney will easily neutralize this issue unless the economy absolutely tanks.

The defensive position that conservatives take on the debates on poverty makes them sitting ducks. Conservatives need to take an offensive stance on this issue, or our defeat is sure. The current debate is structured as follows:

    Liberals: "We should take more money from the rich to provide for the poor."
    Conservatives: "No we shouldn't, and here are the reasons:"

While those reasons are numerous and well thought out, the very structure of this argument ensures that conservatives will lose the battle to prevent a moderate socialist system from dominating America's future. Most people, liberals, moderates, and undecided's alike have hear:

    "Liberals: "We should take more money from the rich to provide for the poor."
    Conservatives: "No we shouldn't, and blah blah blah blah:"

Every "no we shouldn't" is another touchdown for liberalism. Conservatives need to take the initiative from the liberals and stop playing a defensive game. It is this defensive game that makes conservatives looking like anti-poor curmudgeons. Conservatives should stop merely answering liberal initiatives and should spend their energy advancing their own initiative. What is their initiative? It is to do everything possible to encourage the most fruitful heirarchy of aid for the poor. Conservatives need to articulate at every opportunity that the proper order of responsibility for helping the poor is as follows:

1. The poor themselves.
2. Their immediate families.
3. Their extended families.
4. Their religions, other people's religions, or private charity in general.
5. Their local governments.
6. National government.

Inasmuch as conservatives keep saying "no" to liberal plans to help the poor, no matter how misbegotten those plans are, they are handing victories to socialism. They must aggressively promote their own plans to succeed.

I had to pick a topic, so I chose 2nd ammendment, but my comment is much broader than that.

I suspect that in general, tragedies make for bad policies. The quintessential example is the Reichstag fire, but I can think of several other examples. Katrina brought about a boatload of idiotic policies. Mass shootings frequently bring calls for heavy-handedness. Liberals probably believe a lot of post 9/11 policies are bad policies born of a tragedy.