Tuesday, November 07, 2006

A TRUE IDEOLOGICAL BATTLE

Is this really the dawn of a new day for the left?

BY ARTHUR C. BROOKS

In their 2004 book, "The Right Nation," John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge chronicle America's rightward tilt. "If American politics is a seesaw, it is an unevenly balanced one. Imagine Dennis Hastert at one end of the seesaw and Nancy Pelosi on the other end, and you have some idea about which party is sitting with its legs dangling in the air. In the war between two Americas, Hastertland has been winning."

Until today, that is. This midterm election, in the view of many optimistic liberals, will be a forceful repudiation of the inevitability of American conservatism. A victory after so many years of losses will mark the beginning of the end to the country's nightmarish reactionary drift. According to Howard Dean, "The American people are fed up and want to change course. Democrats are offering the American people a new direction." But will it really be the dawn of a new day for the American left? After a cold look at the evidence, liberals might decide to take the champagne off the ice. The victory, assuming there is one, will hardly be glorious, and long-term trends are still distinctly right wing.

Some doomsday scenarios envision a 45-seat shift in the House of Representatives and a substantial Democratic majority in the Senate. These predictions, when looking at the actual data, are probably unrealistic. My colleague Danny Hayes, a political scientist who studies polling, says that the most reasonable picture has the Democrats winning 20-30 seats and taking narrow control of the House, while failing to win the Senate. This assessment is consistent with what most mainstream pollsters are predicting.

No bloodbath--but still major progress for the left, right? Not really. We are in the midst of a deeply unpopular war, and an electorate in a foul mood. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that more than 30% of likely voters planned to cast their ballots on Nov. 7 for Democrats specifically as a sign of opposition to George Bush. Congressional Republicans are hardly helping their own cause, between corruption and sexual misconduct. And the Republican Congress has so alienated authentic conservative voters with its porky profligacy that lots of Republicans will probably stay home.

By all rights, the Republicans left in Congress after this election should be able to pool to work in one minivan. Instead, they are probably facing a 10% setback in House seats--hardly a disaster by midterm election standards. What's more, many of the Democrats at the vanguard of today's political "revolution" are not exactly left-wing zealots. Robert Casey, who leads incumbent Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, opposes abortion rights. On issues of gun control and immigration, Senate candidate Harold Ford of Tennessee sounds like a Republican. James Webb, who seeks to unseat Virginia Sen. George Allen, actually used to be a Republican. The lesson is that Democrats can win modestly if the Republicans implode, and preferably if they look more or less like Republicans. This is hardly a mythic victory for the American left; indeed, the larger cultural picture--in which the election is but a minor political datum--remains strikingly bleak for American liberalism.

Consider the effect of religious faith, which endures as the most important cultural fault line. On the whole, America is fundamentally religious, with 85% of people expressing allegiance to an organized faith and a third attending a house of worship weekly. Secularism is an exotic taste--except on the political left. According to the General Social Survey, liberals are a third less likely than the rest of the population to worship regularly, and less than half as likely as conservatives. The percentage of self-described liberals who say they have "no religion" has more than doubled since the early '70s.

This cultural trend represents a growing political liability for the left. Only about one in four Americans currently say they believe that the Democratic Party is friendly toward religion, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The practical impact of this belief is nicely described by author Stephen Carter in his book, "The Dissent of the Governed." He describes two black evangelical women who change their affiliations from liberal political groups to conservative Christian organizations, explaining that "they preferred a place that honored their faith and disdained their politics over a place that honored their politics and disdained their faith." These women are part of a real trend among religious Americans: According to the National Election Surveys, religious Democrats are more likely than any other group to change their party affiliation. Between 2000 and 2002, they were nearly four times more likely to do so than secular Republicans.

There's certainly more to ideology than faith, of course. Another major cultural force is immigration, which--as liberals hope and conservatives fear --has the power to counteract the conservatizing effects of religion. "Today we march, tomorrow we vote," was the slogan chanted earlier this year by Latinos demonstrating in the streets against Republican-led immigration crackdowns. The warning made the blood of many conservatives run cold. It shouldn't have; the political mobilization of Latinos may actually expand the cultural dominance of the American right. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey in 2000, while American Latinos are about as likely as non-Latinos to say they are politically conservative, those not (yet) registered to vote are significantly more conservative than both voting Latinos and the population at large. In other words, a growing, more politically active Latino U.S. probably means a more conservative U.S. as well.

This counterintuitive fact is good news for the cultural right. But can Republicans capitalize politically on this pattern? Some doubt it, given the party's perceived hostility to immigration and apparent willingness to overlook the racial insensitivity of Sen. George Allen's "macaca" remark about an Indian-American man at a recent campaign event.

So much for religious folks and immigrants. What about young people? Maybe the left can, like it always has, look to the culture of youth to jumpstart the progressive movement. But even here, things are going conservatives' way. The left's traditional edge among young adults shrank from 1974 to 2004, as the percentage of adults 18-25 who labeled themselves political liberals fell by 12%, and the percentage saying they were conservative rose by 143%.

Waning youth support for the left may be partly due to the adroitness of conservative causes. But it probably also has to do with liberal inability or unwillingness to build an authentic youth grass-roots movement. A new and hotly debated book by Columbia University sociologist Dana Fisher documents the fact that most liberal political groups have dismantled their grassroots operations since the mid-'90s and subcontracted their activism to a small group of for-profit and nonprofit companies. In other words, the Republican canvasser at your door is a volunteer and true believer. But the kid asking for your signature and contribution for the local Democratic Party is probably a paid employee. This may be evidence that the left can no longer build grass-roots support to maintain itself, or that it has cut corners and sent its support-building mechanisms ideologically offshore. Either way, it bodes ill for progressive causes.

These are just three examples of the cultural patterns that continue to strengthen the right in America. Many more can be found in fertility patterns, the effects of education, and elsewhere. They tell us that conservatives have much to smile about, no matter what happens today at the polls. Reasonable people will disagree as to whether this is grounds for celebration or a call to fight. Either way, however, it is undeniable that the true ideological battle in America goes far deeper than a midterm election.

Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," to be published this month by Basic Books.

TODAY THE CALM; TOMORROW THE STORM

If there is going to be one slow day this week, today will be it. Gone are the campaign ads (we hope) and a pathetically small percentage of cogent Americans will make their ways to the polls to punish, to reward or, in many cases, to vote for their livelihood.

I'm going to try to cast my votes when the polls open, so there will be paltry notes this morning. I have a feeling we'll make it up tomorrow.

My Congressman is a Democrat. John Lewis. There is no way in hell that the voters are going to turn him away. Our U.S. Senators are safe this time around .. neither is up for reelection. There's really nothing for me to do at the polls except vote against any constitutional amendments that give government more power, and vote for Libertarians.

TOMORROW THE STORM

Unless something earthshaking happens, tomorrow Democrats will be celebrating a return to control of the House of Representatives. If things go worse than expected they'll also be celebrating control of the Senate. Celebrating right along with the Democrats will be those who have declared war on our culture; those who have vowed to see our society placed under their control ... the Islamic fascists.

If the people of this country truly understood that we are involved in a war to preserve our very way of life, this wouldn't be happening. There is no way in hell the Democrats can make any valid claim that they stand ready to protect this country from Islamic terrorism. For them to prevail the voters must believe that the threat doesn't exist.

What happens at America's polling places today will be seen as nothing less than a sign of weakness by those who want to destroy us. While spokesbeards for the Islamists talk of cooperation and negotiations with their newfound "friends" in Washington, behind the scenes they'll be plotting ways to take advantage of our softness in a relentless drive to destroy America and make Islam the world's dominant power. In the end I still believe that Western culture will prevail and the terrorists will be defeated, but the cost that will be paid will be increased by the weakness Americans will show at the polls today.

There will be other celebrations tomorrow, celebrations by people who profess a love for this country rather than hatred. Those who have squandered their American birthright and have, instead, become nothing more than adult government dependents will be quite happy. What's not for a loser to celebrate when the party of wealth redistribution shows strength? Those who vote for a living will have their day today.

Tomorrow those who work for a living, and those who have managed to figure out that our country is at war, will wonder why they couldn't make time to vote.

Monday, November 06, 2006

REMEMBER TO VOTE ON TUESDAY

A Friend Of Mine Sent Me This And I Wanted To Pass It On:

Probably by now you've seen the Democrats' latest campaign slogan:
"A New Direction For America -- Vote DEMOCRATIC!"*

Perhaps we should analyze this promise.

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back.
A new direction from there means what?

Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Oil prices are plummeting.
A new direction from there means what?

Taxes are at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
A new direction from there means what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.
A new direction from there means what?

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.
A new direction from there means what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
A new direction from there means what?

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not
surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's top dogs
are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
A new direction from there means what?

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel,
including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being
exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the
anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
A new direction from there means what?

Just as President Bush foretold on a number of occasions, Iraq was
to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as
President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are
arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to
get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and
heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means what?

Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of the
1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the 90's,
and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning , which
collectively sucked 24 trillions dollars and 7.8 million jobs out of the
US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his suitcases in the
White House. It's easy to attempt to discredit, disgrace and defame our
commander in-chief, George W. Bush; what's not so easy to do is to refute irrefutable
facts, no matter how they might try.

Do yourself and this country of ours a favor and don't be bent on hate and blame-shifting simply in the name of hate and blame-shifting. Take heed of reality, use your head and cast your vote
wisely in the upcoming elections.

The stakes are far too high today, as America's very future,
and yes, even its very survival is now at stake!

Yes, I said even our very survival is at stake

SADDAM SENTENCED TO HANG

Well this puts Democrats in a bit of a bind, doesn't it? Here we are, the day before the mid-term elections....a day in which their party is expected to at least take over the House of Representatives....and they have a problem. The popularity of the Democrats right now hinges almost exclusively on the unpopularity of the war in Iraq. The idea that the Butcher of Baghdad might hang for his crimes could justify the war in Iraq in enough people's minds to cause them to pull the GOP lever tomorrow.

Some Democrats are being smart about it. New York Senator Chuck Schumer, for instance, came out and said yesterday that Saddam was a brutal, evil dictator that is getting what he deserves...but he doesn't think the conviction makes much of a difference in the election. This is in stark contrast to Howard Dean's comments that were made right after Saddam was captured 3 years ago. Remember that? Dean said America was not safer after Saddam's capture. He's since changed his tune, calling Saddam Hussein a war criminal who is getting what he deserves.

But this isn't what Democrats really want to say. They probably think that the trial's verdict was timed by the Bush Administration to coincide directly with the mid-term elections. A "November Surprise," if you will. What they really believe is that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein...and they're upset at the idea he might be executed. All of this proves one thing: Democrats are invested in American defeat in Iraq. Any positive development...any...they're going to downplay it. It's the only issue they have in this election and when something like this happens, they have nothing.

Will Saddam's verdict be enough to change public opinion about the war over the course of 2 days? Probably not. But you can definitely tell the left is worried.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

THE SADDAM HUSSEIN VERDICT

Saddam Hussein, the tyrant who gassed and tortured his own people en masse, will be sentenced on Sunday. Instead of seeing the conclusion of the trial as an instrument of justice, Bush critics have put on their tinfoil hats to ply more nutball conspiracy theories:

A verdict in the first criminal case against Saddam Hussein is expected two days before a key US midterm vote that has become a referendum on the Iraq war -- but any benefit for President George W. Bush's Republican Party was unclear.

The verdict is to be presented on Sunday, just ahead of Tuesday's vote in which Bush's Republicans appeared poised to lose control of Congress...

... On the Internet, in US leftist discussion forums and among some bloggers, there is a strong suspicion that the date was chosen on purpose to benefit the Republicans.

"Given the Bush administration's history of timing national security-related actions to the political calendar, has the date for the verdict's release been set to provide maximum political benefit for the administration and congressional Republicans?" asked a blogger on the DemocraticUnderground.com discussion site.

Tom Engelhardt, writing in the leftist The Nation magazine, notes that the verdict comes "curiously enough, just two days before the midterm elections. It's the sort of the thing that -- you would think -- any reporter with knowledge of the US election cycle ... would at least note in an article. But no, you can search high and low without finding a reference to this in the mainstream media."

US Ambassador in Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad rejects the charges, insisting that the date was set by Iraqi judges and that Washington had no role in the decision.

THE POODLE'S EMPTY APOLOGY

Just as predicted, John Kerry strode to a microphone yesterday and attempted to apologize for saying those who didn't study hard and get an education would wind up in Iraq. Here is how he said it: "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended. As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: My poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop."

Now...to properly understand Kerry's apology, you will need an interpretation. Here is what he really means:

  1. He regrets that his words were misinterpreted. What he really means here is that if anyone thought he was insulting our troops abroad, that means they're an idiot. Remember, no one is as smart as John Kerry...and if you don't know what John Kerry meant, then that means you're just not qualified to pass judgment on The Poodle. Only if and when you become as intelligent as The Kept Man will you ever know what he truly meant. Translation: it's all your fault.
  2. As a combat veteran...his comment was never intended to refer to any troop. Translation: hey...John Kerry served in combat for a few months, milking it for several purple hearts and medals...ribbons? Ok, medals. By saying only dumb people wind up in Iraq, he didn't mean the troops. He meant....well, he's not sure. But it wasn't troops...because, hey...he's been there. Oh .. and his words must have also been "misinterpreted" last year when he talked about our troops "terrorizing women and children" and several years ago when he compared them to the rampaging hoards of Genghis Kahn.

At the end of the day, the basic thrust of Kerry's "apology" is that anyone who thinks he meant what he meant is not as smart as he is. Typical elitist, leftist condescension....and part of the reason he was blown out in the 2004 election.