Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Discrimination in the halls of Congress.

Novelist-playwright-screenwriter-producer Sidney Sheldon passes away at 89. More from the Washington Post and the AP.

Is Massachusetts Congressman Marty Meehan on his way out?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why… I dream of things that never were, and ask why not."

– Robert F. Kennedy

There are times when the call to service must be answered.

There are moments when an individual must look beyond himself and his own interests to do what is right, what is fair and what is best for his country.

There are times when even a reluctant gladiator must step into the arena and fight to preserve the things he holds dear.

Now is that time.

We are promoting democracy overseas while we fail to appreciate it here at home. We have become a nation of broken hearts and broken souls. We are a nation wounded and in desperate need of healing.

Our political system is in shambles. Our elected officials are seemingly devoid of value, of purpose, of decency, of principle. Public service is considered a sordid joke. Today, there seems to be little difference between what is shown on C-SPAN and what is shown on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Someone must stand up to address this problem. Someone must make an effort to mend this broken system.

Now, I don’t have all the answers. In fact, I have no plan. However, if you, the voters, put your faith in me…then together, we can.

Today, January 31, 2007, I am officially announcing my candidacy for the United States Senate. With your help, prayers, and plentiful, wallet-busting, checking-account-emptying donations, I will receive the Massachusetts Republican Party’s nomination to challenge Sen. John Kerry in November 2008.

Ask yourself: why in Heaven’s name is Sen. Kerry in Davos when he could be right here, attending to the needs of folks in Dorchester, Danvers and Dedham? Our junior Senator is so out of touch, he arguably cannot even touch himself.

Kerry may have served in Vietnam, but his Senate career has become a quagmire. He’s been missing in action while the residents of the Bay State have become prisoners of the Senate’s political wars. It’s as if he voted for supporting our interests before he voted against it.

Massachusetts needs a Senator who can think on his feet, someone who can sympathize with the man on the street. We need a graduate of the school of hard knocks, not someone known for flip-flopping, windsurfing and Botox.

Even if you believe he hasn’t done much as Senator, we can all agree that he’s done everything he can possibly do. Doesn’t he deserve an enjoyable retirement?

Kerry has been a voice for the hard-left. I promise to represent everybody: Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians, vegetarians, Unitarians. I’ll even represent totalitarians–if Bill Delahunt can do it, why can’t I?

Plenty of folks think it’s impossible for a Republican to beat Sen. Kerry. However, those who believe in the futility of this fight are merely trafficking in cynicism–and as far as I’m concerned, it is time to put our cynicism down!

I have a charge to keep. I will fight for a kinder, gentler, nation, and I will always stand for the people against the powerful–because I have the audacity to keep hope alive.

I humbly ask for your prayers, your money, your support, your money, your help, your money, your vote, and your money as I embark upon this campaign. I am confident that I will be your next United States Senator after Election Day 2008. After all, it’s been nearly 30 years since Kerry’s seat was held by a brother–and don’t you think it’s time that seat was held by another?

We remember so many things about the year 1972–the release of The Godfather, Richard Nixon’s landslide re-election, Diana Ross’ film debut in Lady Sings the Blues. Another event of tremendous cultural significance occurred 35 years ago–an event that still resonates with lovers of musical art to this very day.

In the fall of 1972, Can’t Buy A Thrill, the debut album from the pioneering rock group Steely Dan, was released; the album quickly became a pop-culture staple thanks to the hit singles "Do It Again" and "Reelin’ in the Years." Thrill is filled with grace notes from beginning to end: the elegant moodiness of "Dirty Work" and "Midnight Cruiser," the piercing loneliness of "Fire in the Hole," the humorous chaos of "Turn That Heartbeat Over Again." Very few artists are lucky to create a masterwork right out of the gate: with Thrill, Dan joined that rarefied company.

Less than a year later, Dan managed to exceed their previous excellence with Countdown To Ecstasy, another top-to-bottom flawless album. Every song on the album would merit inclusion on a greatest-hits disc: the manic "Bodhisattva," the jazzy "Your Gold Teeth," the sarcastic "My Old School" and "Show Biz Kids," the romantic "Pearl of the Quarter," the ferocious "Boston Rag." Ecstasy wasn’t as commercially successful as Thrill, but the album is one of the most creatively inspired musical works of all-time.

In 1974, Dan released Pretzel Logic, a commercial success thanks to the subversively edgy hit "Rikki Don’t Lose That Number." It’s a testament to the brilliance of Walter Becker and Donald Fagen that even the putatively depressing tracks on the album (the prejudice allegory "Barrytown" and the drug-addiction chronicle "Charlie Freak") are, in their own way, uplifting. "With a Gun," "Night by Night," "Pretzel Logic", "Through with Buzz" and the Charlie Parker tribute "Parker’s Band" are works without flaw or peer.

By 1975, Dan had become a studio-only band; the technical and business complications of touring had become far too enervating for both men. Before the bicentennial, they released Katy Lied, yet another outstanding achievement. Katy Lied depicts an America flirting with derangement: one cannot listen to such brilliant tracks as "Bad Sneakers," "Black Friday," "Any World That I’m Welcome To," and "Everyone’s Gone to the Movies" without envisioning a populace "going insane/and… laughing in the frozen rain." "Throw Back the Little Ones" evokes the loneliness of "Fire in the Hole," "Your Gold Teeth II" represents a moment of calm in the midst of a cultural hurricane, and "Daddy Don’t Live in That New York City No More" outdoes "My Old School" and "Show Biz Kids" in its sardonic look at life.

Extreme cynicism also defined 1976’s The Royal Scam, which would be considered Steely Dan’s greatest work were it not for the album Becker and Fagen released the next year. "Everything You Did," "Sign in Stranger," "Haitian Divorce," "Kid Charlemagne" and "Don’t Take Me Alive" are harsh, bitter, brutally funny examinations of the worst elements of the human condition. "The Royal Scam" is a furious, expertly crafted denunciation of the exploitation of ethnic immigrants in turn-of-the-century America; the song works because, unlike other "protest songs" by "socially conscious" musicians, it is absolutely free of pretense and self-consciousness. Just as "Your Gold Teeth II" provided a break from the turmoil on Katy Lied, Fagen and Becker supply a bit of emotional relief with the beautiful "Caves of Altamira," a meditation on lost childhood innocence that is perhaps their finest song.

After a year of production, Steely Dan released the iconic album Aja in the fall of 1977. The album can still inspire euphoria even if one has listened to it a hundred times. From the romantic aura of the lengthy title track to the barely concealed anger of "Deacon Blues," from the smooth, sharp cynicism of "Black Cow" to the sexual hilarity of "I Got the News," Aja was, is and always will be a work of genius. The album was a tremendous commercial success, powered by the hit single "Peg"; much like Prince’s Purple Rain, Aja represented one of the few times in modern musical history that an album’s success was warranted by its creative achievement.

After releasing a greatest-hits album in 1978, Becker and Fagen began work on their next album. The recording sessions were constantly interrupted by personal tragedies, legal disputes, and technical difficulties; for Becker and Fagen, the production of this album was essentially a minor version of the hell Francis Ford Coppola went through making Apocalypse Now. Gaucho was finally released in November 1980; thankfully, it was also a success due to the hit single "Hey Nineteen." The cynicism on Gaucho is far less distinct than it was on The Royal Scam or Katy Lied; songs such as "Glamour Profession," "Third World Man" and the title track have their share of pessimism, but the songs are hardly what one would call end-of-the-world visions. The standout track on this album is "Babylon Sisters," arguably the "sexiest" Steely Dan song ever.

Exhausted from the strife of producing Gaucho, and feeling that they had accomplished everything they possibly could as a unit, Becker and Fagen disbanded the group in the summer of 1981. Fagen immediately went into production on his solo debut, 1982’s The Nightfly, an outstanding work that can be considered Aja II in terms of quality; later in the decade, he would match his accomplishment with the musical score for the underrated 1988 Michael J. Fox film Bright Lights, Big City. Becker spent the 1980s producing albums for such artists as Rickie Lee Jones.

Steely Dan reunited in the early-1990s: Becker produced Fagen’s second solo album, 1993’s Kamakiriad, Fagen returned the favor on Becker’s 1994 solo album, 11 Tracks of Whack, and the two returned to touring after nearly two decades (highlights from their 1993 and 1994 tours appeared on the 1995 album Alive in America).

In the late-1990s, Steely Dan began work on their first post-Gaucho album. 2000’s Two Against Nature proved that Fagen and Becker had never lost what made them great: the album seemingly picks up exactly where Gaucho had left off, with muted cynicism ("What A Shame About Me," "Jack of Speed") and off-kilter humor ("Cousin Dupree," "Gaslighting Abbie," "Janie Runaway" and the title track). The album deservedly won a Grammy for Album of the Year, although Becker and Fagen should have earned the award for Aja 23 years earlier.

Steely Dan is still going strong today; they followed up Nature with 2003’s critically acclaimed Everything Must Go, and embarked on another well-received tour shortly after the 2006 release of Fagen’s third solo album, Morph the Cat. Steely Dan’s resurgence is one of the better musical developments of the last fifteen years. Considering the deterioration of popular music in the United States over the past decade and a half, it’s wonderful to know that Becker and Fagen are back, jack, and doing it again.

Should the Republicans regain control of the House and Senate in 2008, don’t hold your breath waiting for the GOP to revive efforts to enact the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Even if the Maryland Supreme Court follows in the footsteps of Massachusetts and decides to authorize same-sex marriage, it’s unlikely that the Republicans, if they regain power, will work to pass the FMA. This decision will have nothing to do with principle and everything to do with politics.

It’s often been argued that the GOP failed to press forward with a serious effort to enact the FMA in 2006 because same-sex marriage is a "divisive" social issue. In reality, same-sex marriage isn’t that "divisive" an issue, because there is very little national support for gay marriage. However, while that is the case now, it may not always be the case–which is what the GOP is anticipating.

Because of increasing American cultural libertarianism regarding homosexuality, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that by the 2030s, a majority of Americans could in fact support the idea of gay marriage. If this turns out to be the case, then the GOP doesn’t want to be caught "flat-footed." If, a generation from now, gay marriage enjoys wide support, the Republican Party will be looked upon with scorn by those who feel that past efforts to constitutionally forestall gay marriage were homophobic.

While many Americans are currently hesitant to compare the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement, the GOP is apparently concerned that what happened to the party after the civil rights movement will happen to the party again after the gay rights movement. The Republicans suffered lasting damage when Barry Goldwater refused to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act for libertarian reasons during his campaign against President Johnson. Martin Luther King Jr. denounced Goldwater, accusing him of endorsing segregation and declaring that no American of conscience could support either Goldwater or any Republican who backed him. Despite the fact that Republicans such as Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen were instrumental in the very passage of the ‘64 Civil Rights Act, Goldwater’s actions and King’s response allowed the mainstream media to depict the entire Republican Party as a bigoted enterprise–a demonization that continues to this very day. While the GOP has been quite successful despite being smeared as a racist entity in the ’60s, think about how much more successful the party would be if it had never been branded with the scarlet letter of racism: for example, had George W. Bush yielded as much of the black vote in 2000 as he did the white vote, he would have blown Al Gore out of the water.

The Republicans evidently fear that, if they were to strongly support the FMA, they would be haunted by the specter of alleged homophobia in the future, just as they have been haunted by the specter of alleged racism for the past 43 years. Social conservatives must understand that, even if the Republicans reclaim the House and Senate in ‘08, the party will not make a priority of preserving traditional marriage–because the GOP is scared to death that in the future, voters will look at the party and ask for a divorce.

Will the GOP embark on a "risky scheme" by nominating either John McCain or Rudy Guiliani for President in 2008?

You’d figure that the prospect of millions of evangelical Christian voters staying home on Election Day 2008 (instead of voting for a nonconservative GOP contender) would encourage Republicans to get behind a solidly conservative, eminently electable candidate such as Mitt Romney. However, at this stage in the game, that doesn’t seem to be the case: McCain and Guiliani currently enjoy a level of support that is, from a social-conservative perspective, disturbingly high.

Nominating either McCain or Guiliani is a huge gamble. It’s hard to see the conservative blogosphere firmly supporting either man, and impossible to envision talk-radio opinion-movers committing themselves to advocating on behalf of a candidate who doesn’t share their core values. In 2000, Rush Limbaugh strongly pushed for Bush, but four years earlier, he barely troubled a soul to help Dole.

While there’s been a deep desire in some segments of the GOP to move the party away from a focus on social conservatism, isn’t 2008 a little too early for such a desire to be fulfilled? Social conservatives want what they’ve always wanted: "a choice, not an echo." Why would the GOP seek to deprive them of such a choice?

Guiliani’s supporters have defended their candidate on conservative sites such as FreeRepublic.com; these advocates often argue that Guiliani’s support of Roe v. Wade should not be a "deal-breaker" for social conservatives, since his position on the War on Terror is more important in a post-9/11 era.

The argument is faulty for this reason: what about those who feel that birth-control-based abortions are, on some level, a form of terrorism against the unborn? Pro-life Republicans believe that they, too, are fighting an "axis of evil"–and would like to see the GOP nominate someone whose commitment to that fight is steadfast. How can these voters accept a pro-Roe Republican candidate?

If the GOP nominates either McCain or Guiliani, it will send a clear message to social conservatives: we don’t need you guys anymore. Is that the sort of message the party wants to send? If so, social conservatives will respond with a message of their own…a message that could result in a Democrat returning to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

UPDATE: Scot Lehigh on Guiliani.

Robert Drinan, a Catholic priest and liberal Democrat Massachusetts congressman from 1971 to 1981, passes away at 86. More from the Washington Post and the AP.

So how long will it be before Tom Finneran’s gig as a talk-radio host on Boston station WRKO-AM is considered a complete failure?

As Brian Maloney of Save WRKO has pointed out, Finneran is not really a natural fit for the station, and it’s unclear, to say the least, as to whether he has actually has the talent to host an engaging broadcast. It’s often been argued that Finneran did an impressive job substituting for the late David Brudnoy on WBZ-AM in the late-1990s and early-2000s, but in reality Finneran carefully imitated Brudnoy’s style instead of attempting to develop a style of his own.

While Boston listeners have fond memories of Brudnoy, they demand originality, and those who choose to listen to the former Massachusetts House Speaker and convicted perjurer will reject him in short order if he continues to present himself as an ersatz Brudnoy. Say what you will about departing morning host Scott Allen Miller, but he had a distinctive, witty style that made his broadcasts refreshing to listen to. If Finneran comes across as an imitator instead of an innovator, his departure from the station will be swift.

Those who detest Finneran because of his hardcore opposition to the reinstatement of capital punishment and refusal to implement a voter-approved rollback of the state income tax have asserted that his presence on WRKO is terrible. If he doesn’t develop his own style, his time at the station will be truncated.

Epic Movie tops the charts.

The courage of Clarence Thomas.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee launches a bid for the GOP Presidential nomination.

Is there a movement afoot in the United States to bring back Rockefeller Republicanism?

It’s hard to look at the strong support for nonconservative Republican GOP Presidential nominees Rudy Guiliani and John McCain without wondering if there is a deliberate, concentrated effort to bring about a conclusion to the era of Republican social conservatism that defined the GOP from 1980 to 2006. Neither Guiliani nor McCain has any appeal to the traditionalist Christians who strongly supported Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and George W. Bush in the 2000s.  However, it appears that powerful forces within the Republican Party feel that traditionalist Christian support may no longer be necessary.

For the last 27 years, there’s been a perception that the Republican Party represents Christians and the Democrat Party represents "secular progressives." However, this is not entirely the case. The Democrat Party represents the views of both "secular progressives" and left-wing Christians (which is one reason why the Democrats command 90% of black Christian voters). The GOP has represented the views of conservative Christians for the past quarter-century, but there is a faction of the party that’s "religiously neutral" (i.e., they don’t support what they see as conservative efforts to "legislate morality").

It seems that the "religiously neutral" faction of the party is gaining strength; how else does one explain the continued power of Guiliani and McCain in Republican polls? It’s difficult to avoid concluding that "religiously neutral" Republicans have decided that the party should no longer have as a focus the representation and support of the philosophy of conservative Christianity.

Why do these "religiously neutral" Republicans want to abandon a formula that has worked so well for 27 years? There are two obvious reasons: a desire to appeal to independent voters who would like to vote for the GOP but who are put off by the supposedly homophobic, socially judgmental, "anti-science" conservative Christian faction of the party, and a belief that by moving away from a focus on advancing conservative Christianity, the party can appeal to certain voting blocs (such as recent legal immigrants) whose views don’t accord with the tenets of the Christian right.

The nomination of either McCain or Guiliani as the GOP’s Presidential candidate next year will be a clear signal that, in the view of the Republican "establishment," the goal of advancing a conservative Christian philosophy is no longer important. It won’t necessarily mean that both parties will be "secular" parties, but it will mean that conservative Christians will have to find nonpolitical means to advance their agenda.

Does anyone really give a crap what Barack Obama did at Harvard Law School? More from the Globe and the Harvard Crimson.

If either Rudy Guiliani or John McCain receives the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, will such an event represent the end of the American social-conservative movement?

At this point, it’s hard to envision either Guiliani or McCain becoming the GOP nominee: both men are known for having alienated the Republican Party’s conservative base with their stands on certain social issues. However, it’s not entirely possible to rule either man out, especially with the possibility that continued attacks from both the left and the right on Mitt Romney’s character and values could severely injure his campaign.

There is a chance that Republican primary voters, in the name of perceived electability, will select either McCain or Guiliani to represent the party in the November general election. If that occurs, it will be one of the few times in recent political history in which a candidate not embraced by social conservatives becomes the GOP nominee (social conservatives were only tepidly supportive of George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole).

If Republican primary voters get behind either Guiliani or McCain, it will be a clear indication that those voters no longer believe that socially conservative views are a prerequisite for the nomination. It will be a true turning point for American politics–but what will be the consequences?

There are elements in the Republican Party that would love to see social conservatism declared null and void. These elements regard social conservatives as unpleasant, ignorant, Bible-thumping hicks, stuck in the past and unable to get with the modern program. These elements feel that the GOP would have a much wider appeal if they could only get rid of the "theocrats."

There is a perception that these elements want to make the GOP a "secular" party, but that’s not entirely the case. Many of them have no problem with religion per se; they simply feel that religion is a private matter, and that the state should have a limited role with regard to issues of public morality.

For years, these elements have resented the influence of the Christian right; they view the social-conservative wing of the party with contempt, and would love to see the power of this wing limited. If either McCain or Guiliani becomes the nominee in 2008, their goal will have been achieved.

But at what cost? If social conservatives stay home, repelled by either the social liberalism of Guiliani or the "maverick" machinations of McCain, then it’s very likely that a Democrat could return to power. However, the anti-social-conservative wing of the GOP doesn’t feel that this will be the case. In their view, there are millions of Americans who would love to vote GOP but who can’t tolerate the "traditional values" faction of the party. They would gladly sacrifice the votes of social conservatives in order to gain the support of this supposedly larger voting bloc.

It’s hard to believe that, nearly thirty years after socially conservative Republicans put Ronald Reagan into office, the party they once supported could freeze them out by nominating a candidate who shares few, if any, of their interests. However, if that does happen, it will be an unfortunate sign of the times. While certain elements of the social-conservative movement remain vibrant (particularly the pro-life movement), American culture has largely frustrated the goals of the social Right. More and more Americans seem to have embraced a libertarian view of pornography and homosexuality. Violence and sex continue to fill our movie, television, and computer screens. Abstinence education continues to be scorned, and the concept of intelligent design continues to be labeled right-wing nonsense.

If either McCain or Guiliani receives the GOP nomination, it will be irrefutable proof that America has become a socially libertarian country. Those who sought to establish moral guidelines for the United States will obviously be disappointed by this turn of events; however, their disappointment should not turn into disillusionment.

Social conservatives will always have a place at the American political table. There will always be Americans who are concerned about this country’s moral environment, and willing to conserve what is beautiful about American culture. So long as there is a desire for a certain degree of decency in the public square, the voices of social conservatism will continue to be heard.

Christian writer Cal Thomas has often argued that there are limits to what social conservatives can do through the American political process to change American culture for the better. In 2008, social conservatives may learn just how restrictive those limits are. After 2008, they may also learn how those limits can be transcended.

UPDATE: The Boston Globe, Washington Times and New York Times on Guiliani. Plus, the AP, Captain’s Quarters and the New York Times on Romney.