I’m feeling uninspired. Usually, my brain is teaming with things that I desperately want to transfer to my blog. Today, though, I can’t seem to get excited about any one thought. Instead, I feel buffeted by disparate pieces of information that I can’t weave together into a coherent whole — or, if I do finally weave some intellectual cloth, I’m saddened by the results.
For example, in quick order this morning I read two articles about political trends in the US. The first was Michael Barone’s Realignment of America, which sees a demographic power shift away from the Blue State coastal areas and into Red State “flyover” country. As someone who has lived in both Red states and Blue, I see that as a good thing and cause for optimism, both in the near and far future. I also enjoyed the article’s tone, because Barone had some great points to make and used colorful imagery to make them:
This is something few would have predicted 20 years ago. Americans are now moving out of, not into, coastal California and South Florida, and in very large numbers they’re moving out of our largest metro areas. They’re fleeing hip Boston and San Francisco, and after eight decades of moving to Washington they’re moving out. The domestic outflow from these metro areas is 3.9 million people, 650,000 a year. High housing costs, high taxes, a distaste in some cases for the burgeoning immigrant populations–these are driving many Americans elsewhere.
The result is that these Coastal Megalopolises are increasingly a two-tiered society, with large affluent populations happily contemplating (at least until recently) their rapidly rising housing values, and a large, mostly immigrant working class working at low wages and struggling to move up the economic ladder. The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and São Paulo.
Democratic politicians like to decry what they describe as a widening economic gap in the nation. But the part of the nation where it is widening most visibly is their home turf, the place where they win their biggest margins (these metro areas voted 61% for John Kerry) and where, in exquisitely decorated Park Avenue apartments and Beverly Hills mansions with immigrant servants passing the hors d’oeuvres, they raise most of their money.
Immediately after reading Barone’s article, however, I read Bruce Barlett’s pessimistic article virtually promising a Democratic takeover of the White House 2008, which is why he’s putting his money on Hillary, the most conservative of the Democratic candidates:
While conceding the possibility that I am wrong, I think it is foolish to ignore the strong Democratic trend that is indisputable. Republicans should remember that they just barely won the White House in 2000 and 2004 against very poor Democratic candidates and with the party strongly united behind George W. Bush. I just don’t see that happening again next year.
The Republicans are not going to be as united, and it is almost a certainty that the Democrats will run a better campaign in 2008. I think all three of the Democrats within striking distance of the nomination will be better candidates than Al Gore or John Kerry. And because of the close losses in 2000 and 2004, the Democrats will really pull together this time.
Meanwhile, voter fatigue is going to wear heavily on the Republican nominee, who is not likely to have the same unity of party that the Democrat will have. It is obvious that there is no enthusiasm for any of the Republicans, which is why so many in the party are yearning for another candidate, such as former Sen. Fred Thompson, to jump in the race. The Republican nominee will be the last candidate still standing at the end of the day, which is not a prescription for party unity.
Bartlett further supports his thesis by pointing to the fact that major business donors, who formerly supported Republicans, are now backing Democrats, whom they see as the winning horses in the next big race.
Conflicting stories such as these leave me befuddled. Lacking either a crystal ball or intense political science-type information, I simply can’t optimistically, or pessimistically, place myself behind one or the other argument. In other words, unusual for me, I have nothing to say.
You’ll also notice that, although I remarked upon Sarkozy’s election, I’ve otherwise been silent. I think it’s a good thing, showing that the French are figuring out that they’ve created a problem for themselves over the past few decades, but I actually don’t see a Thatcherite revolution in the making. For one thing, as I noted yesterday, there’s good reason to believe that the French administrative system is so deeply entrenched that nothing will change it. Every single person holding a government managerial position in France, from the lowest to (excluding Sarkozy) the highest, has been trained in one way of thinking, and that’s the way that’s been in effect since the 1960s. That alone means that Sarkozy will be, at best, decorative and, at worst, a much touted conservative failure.
I also think people are deluding themselves to believe that Sarkozy can completely stop the current rioting or prevent future eruptions — a hope I heard Michael Medved express on his radio show yesterday. You all know that I’m not much of a “root cause” person, believing as I do that individuals have more moral complexity and flexibility than the Marxists would have us think. However, from everything I’ve read or heard, from people on either side of the political divide, the French system is exceptionally hostile to allowing in anyone who doesn’t completely abandon his personal identity in favor of a generic “Frenchness.” Do the latter, of course, and you’re in like Flynn. However, if you resist that entre — and who is more resistant currently than Muslim immigrants? — all doors are closed to you. This means that, no matter how fast Sarkozy arrests the more violent actors, unless he can change in a year or two the entire French economic and social system, the banlieus will continue to be petri dishes for ever more disaffected, violent “youths.”
And don’t even get me started on Israel. Israel is in seriously bad shape, and it’s not helped by the fact that Olmert, who seems to be inefficient at everything useful, proves to be surprisingly efficient at the one thing that is least beneficial to Israelis — keeping his political balance. This is a country that is inevitably going to be on the receiving end of a multi-front war, and that has no leadership. However, it’s worse than that. Even if Olmert were to resign now, it would still be a dreadful thing. If I were collective of hostile nations planning to attack Israel, I couldn’t think of a better time to do it than after a government collapse and in the run-up to a new election. I also found incredibly disturbing (as you know) the fact that Israel was so hampered by media coverage and Islamic propaganda that she found herself incapable of waging a war to win, as opposed to waging a war to stalemate. The last was an especially stupid thing to do, so it did not change by one iota the venom poured out against her in the media and (of course) in the Arab/Muslim world. Unless there has been a sea change in the Israeli psyche since last summer, any future war will be a repeat of the last one, only worse.
I could go on and on and on, but I clearly have little to say except to grumble or express bafflement. That is, the information currently available to me either confuses or depresses me. Worse, both emotions leave me without that wonderful intellectual frisson I get when I feel as if I’ve seen a unifying idea buried within mountains of disparate information.
Knowing me, I’ll probably be back babbling within a day (or even hours), but right now I do feel disheartened, and it slows my fingers on the keyboard.
Filed under: France, Israel, Presidential elections
Sorry to depress you more Book but Sarkozy’s right wing victory still puts him further to the left than
Baldwin,Travolta,Madonna,Streisand,Penn,Moore,Moyer,Rosie
Robbins and Sarandon all wrapped into one(can’t count on the French when the tough gets going). Hey you still got Howard in Aussieland and Harper in Canuckland.
Now snap out of that funk and get that Bookmobile motoring !
Yes ,yes, I know November 6 will be devastating but sheesh Bushie had 8 years to turn it around.
“keep the motoring running out on the highway”(internet speaking of course).A Steppenwolfe tune will rev you up !
I think this is a good case of waiting, Book. Patience is necessary, especially in such stalemates. France and all the other things you have said, will decide their fate soon enough. There is no hurry, or should be none, on your part to realize the final ending.
Akin to a military saying, plan for the worst but expect the best. I was planning on seeing Sarko lose, so it was a surprise that he won. But in our case Book, the fate is not set in stone. There is plenty of time to change destiny. And the enemy still has a vote as well.
The directive arrived by e-mail this morning, and the borg dutifully blogged on Michael Barone (as seen here, at Confederate Yankee, at Betsy’s Page and God knows where else). Ignore the man behind the curtain, people!
It’s never as dark as it seems when you’re down.
It’s never as totally wunnerful
as it seems when you’re hopelessly bubbly. 
Merkel is not the next Thatcher, Sarkozy is not the next Reagan. But they’re better than what came before. Let’s keep seeing what they’ve got in store.
November, 2008 is a LOOOOONG way away. Yeah, the warning signs of conservative collapse are there. But if we must “through the bitter waters to reach the sweet” then so we shall.
I’m still looking for a candidate who has a true and deep grasp of the importance of individual responsibility and individual liberty, and that understands the importance of fiscal sanity. I am not finding this, to my level of acceptability, in any Republican candidate. Nor in any Democrat candidate (which does not surprise).
Bookworm,
It is baffling how the conservatives imploded after winning a virtual landslide victory in 2004. In 2004, a Republican President was re-elected by a popular majority of roughly 5%, as opposed to the usual 3%, and the conservatives also picked up seats in the House and the Senate. Senator Thune dislodged Senator Daschle from his seat, which was a major victory by the conservatives. And then… nothing happened. The conservative party in America, the Republicans, started to fizzle, and this represents the most baffling reality in politics today.
Instead of the Republican majority ramming through the President’s agenda and ramming through a few of their own, they started to turn on each other. The President wanted to pass an energy bill. A few Republican legislators, senators and congressmen both, jumped over to the liberals. The President wanted to pass a comprehensive immigration bill, the Republicans shot him down.
These are just two of dozens of examples. In a word, the Republicans didn’t back their President when he needed them, and now the Republican Party is aimless, drifting and rapidly becoming listless. It is human nature to desire cohesion and direction. The Republicans don’t evince either of these qualities at the moment.
Back in 2004 during and after the election, I thought to myself that the Democratic Party is going to implode. Their mantra, their constant wild accusations against the President and their incessant lying wouldn’t fly with the American people. Then, their overt use of brownshirt tactics would surely do them in since Americans are not cowering peasant Europeans (but after these past few years, perhaps we are just cowering peasants…).
The Democratic arrogance and disconnection from reality should have done them in when, after their loss, they declared in their defeat, “The American people have spoken. They want the President to work with us!” (I.E. Give me what I want!) The mainstream media trumpeted all these ridiculous demands in the wake of the election, and, thankfully, the American people ignored them and turned to the Republicans.
What did the Republicans do? They started reacting to all the accusations of the Democrats. They played defensive and gave ascension accusations against the President that should have been blown out of the water from day one. “Yes, okay, the President conducted the war incompetently, but…” “Yes, okay, the President doesn’t listen to anyone, but…” The conservatives hung our President out to dry and wondered why we are losing the domestic front and the war.
The thing is, we don’t know what would have happened HAD WE FOLLOWED THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE WE DIDN’T. The conservatives didn’t shout down the accusations. The conservatives didn’t challenge the Democrats every time they got caught lying. The conservatives didn’t tell the American public every time Brownshirt tactics were used.
In a word, it is the Republican Party that is imploding and not the Democratic Party, as I previously thought.
One other major reason for this apparent listlessness from the conservatives is just voter fatigue and incessant insanity. You can only challenge, argue, oppose irrationality so often before wearing out. Part of the wearing out is because you can’t argue with subjectivists and irrationality because, well, you will receive subjective irrationality in return.
On the Democratic side, one can insist on supporting the troops and insist on an American defeat at the same time and not see any contradiction. On the Republican side, one can wrap yourself in the flag and be for patriotism but refuse to do anything to help the President.
(A small aside. When Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers came out three years ago, audiences cheered when they saw the scene before Helms Deep.
“Look! King Theoden stands alone,” Gandalf said.
“Not alone,” said Eomer. “Rohiddim! To the KING!”
Audiences cheered when Eomer and his riders charged down the slope, joined their king, who stood alone amidst thousands of orcs, and routed their enemies. Yes, we cheered and were elated.
Now, our President stands alone surrounded by enemies on all sides, foreign and domestic, and what do we do? We turn on the TV, eat our popcorn and feel cathartic, and say to ourselves, “Sucks to be him.”
(Yes, I’m feeling a bit pessimistic today…))
For people who attempt to be centrist, like myself, there really aren’t many places to go…
God help us…
Bush’s refusal to kill enough people doesn’t exactly garner himself an aura of command.
[...] What follows below is my response to Bookworm’s post today titled, “Stale, flat and unprofitable.” [...]
I don’t know that I agree with Bartlett that the democrats will run a better campaign. He sees that as something of a given, whereas what I see is that every time their top candidate opens her mouth, more people realize that, deep down, they just can’t stand her. She is every bit as phony as her husband, but with the crucial difference that he was able to make himself at least appear to be likeable from time to time, as needed. She can’t. She is scripted, hectoring, shrill, a bully, and has no ability to present as otherwise.
I don’t see, in other words, that this is such a shoo-in. She really depends on the ongoing stupidity of the American people, because her resume is, if examined honestly, probably thinner than Obama’s,and every bit as criminous as her husband’s.
The republicans, oddly enough, have a mob of candidates. This is somewhat unusual for them, they tend to be more coalesced than they currently are. (Though, come to think of it, we are 18 months in advance of the election here – which is insane.)
I have little doubt that Rudy Giuliani will prevail, but I look at it somewhat differently. The republicans have choices, and there is indeed a group that wants Fred Thompson in the race (or whoever it is, this early), but I don’t think that signals general dissatisfaction with what’s available. It think it indicates there’s tremendous diversity on the right. There are plenty of people who look at the democrats and think to themselves: “Hillary… or Obama. There’s gotta be somebody else…” – but in their case there isn’t.
To me it’s not at all obvious that there is “no enthusiasm” for any of the candidates. What there is, is a multiplicity of choices, and given that it’s a year and half in advance of the event, so what? That’s probably a good thing. On the other side, on the other hand, they’re already locked in to two people, one of whom is a nothing, (if he actually wrote that book himself, then he thinks like a child), and the other of whom, well- the most active emotion she stirs is dislike.
The republicans are actually having a debate, the democrats are not. There’s diversity and life among republicans, there doesn’t seem to be among the democrats. I see much of what Bartlett regards as a weakness as, in fact, either irrelevant this early, or a strength.
Ultimately the candidate is always “the last man standing at the end of the day.” When has that not been the person who ended up with the nomination? Not sure what Bartlett thinks he’s talking about here, but the point of primaries, cauci, straw polls, etc. has always been to get down to the last man standing. (That’s how it works, Bruce: somebody wins, somebody loses. The loser is no longer “standing,” the winner gets the nomination.)
Generally the party coalesces around that person, and that is more likely to happen in 2008 then every before, because there are not going to be a lot of people who sit it out. If Giuliani is the republican nominee and Hillary is the democrat, there won’t be a republican who stays home. Not one. Even if they can’t stand his social positions, they’ll vote for him to avoid her.
If she’s the nominee from the left side of the aisle, that in itself will contribute more to unity on the right side than almost any other factor.
I hear the media blathering about France, and I’ve even heard the conclusion that “Segolene Royal was the wrong choice, she’s not a woman of substance.” Hillary is?
I didn’t read the Bartlett column, but, much as I like Barone, he’s awfully optimistic. I’d go with Bartlett’s observation about businesses contributing to Democrats as the signal event that I’d be concerned with.
[...] [Discuss this post with Bookworm over at the Bookworm Room…] Share Article California, South Florida, Al Gore, John Kerry, Democrats, Sarkozy, Michael Medved, Marxists, Muslim, Israel, Olmert Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL [...]
BW,
The decreasing of the Republican Party is inevitable. Classical conservatives are people of principle and will only go along with unprincipled ideals so long before they begin to be repelled by them. The Republican Party is no longer conservative in a classical sense, and because of it, it is seeing many MANY people abandon it because principle dictates we do so. As both of our parties move further leftward, a core group of conservatives will stand fast–the left will move with the Democrats no matter how far they regress, but not so for many on the “right”.
If we see the advent of a third party, it may actually be the emergence of a truly conservative party, with the Democrat Party being the leftist representative party and the Republican being the “moderate”. The synthesis of this party may look like a cross between the Libertarian and Constitution parties. I’ll be long dead before it happens though!
-Jack
Won’t the leftists leaving the coastal blue just bring their world view into the red states to which they move, BW?
Conservatives don’t have the courage of their convictions. Sarkozy ran on and itemized big change issue by issue and he now has a huge mandate. Or am I too optimistic?
Good question, Marguerite. Certainly my suburb is bluer than blue. However, I think the Demographic issue isn’t just about motion (moving from here to there), but about who moves. And the people who move tend to be people with children. That is, people who want their children raised in a more wholesome world, who need more cash (college is expensive), and who have an eye on a human future, and not one on an earth denuded of humans so that animals can roam free. Also, many of these people, although not religious when young and single, tend to turn back to religion because of their parenting needs. In other words, I think their needs may drive them somewhat to the Right. They’re no longer radical college kids, living for the minute and unthinkingly embracing every nutty political idea that comes along.
Howdy Bookworm,
You may be right about the kinds of people moving to the Red states. But here’s the thing. In the aftermath of the 2004 election, liberals were falling all over themselves trying to explain what went wrong. If you look at the electoral map, which districts voted Republican, which voted Democrat, you begin to see some very interesting patterns.
The thing most apparent is that there isn’t, technically speaking, an absolute Red State and an absolute Blue State. The liberals and the conservatives are not segregated with a Mason Dixon line, figuratively speaking, but are entirely intertwined with one another. Blue States have a whole bunch of Red and vice versa.
However, the pattern here is not geography in the classic sense, North versus South, East versus West, but the pattern is Metropolitan versus Suburban/ Rural. If you take two steps back, you see concentrated Blue flecks in an ocean of Red.
In Houston, all the suburbs were heavily conservative Republicans, but as you drive closer to the city center, the downtown area, it becomes much more liberal Democrat. I see much of the same tendency here in LA. Orange County, LA’s suburb, is heavily Red, but as you drive into more heavily urban areas toward the coast, it becomes neon blue.
The political division in American can be drawn pretty much along metropolitan/urban and rural/suburban lines. This makes things fairly messy politically and not at all clear cut.
Personally, I think you’re right about the people moving to Red States, Book. They tend to be more conservative in general than liberal. There is also another thing that bears consideration. I submit that even if some people who move to Red States are liberal, I submit to you that most of these liberals will gradual change into conservatives.
The reason for this is simple: Assimilation. When a minority population becomes drenched in the culture of the majority and the majority calls the shots, the minority will take on the coloration of the majority and then become part of the majority. This is how immigrants become assimilated Americans. In areas where the American culture is dominant and inclusive, I bet you anything you will find that most of our Hispanic illegal immigrants behave like Americans. I’ve seen examples of this in Houston as well as LA.
The same is true of liberals living in inclusive Red States. Being drenched in conservative philosophy will eventually assimilate liberals into conservatives.
It’s the sad truth of the matter that most people don’t have the courage of their convictions. Most of the time, they do what is expedient. I’ve known a girl switch from being a religious conservative when she was with her family, to a liberal when her friends were liberal, and then conservative when she adopted another set of friends. I’m not saying this will be true of every liberal entering a Red State, but probably most. And I’d say this is true also of most conservatives coming to live Blue States.
(Reminds me of Yeats actually, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity…”)
[...] I will tell you here and now that I voted for this one and am glad it won. When I wrote that I felt stale, flat and unprofitable, part of my malaise resulted from depressing predictions for 2008. Dafydd cheerfully predicts, [...]