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

Dean Barnett and Matthew Continetti on the fiscal crisis.

UPDATE: More from Connie Hair, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Matt Lewis, Mona Charen, Michael Graham, Holly Robichaud, David Limbaugh, Monica Crowley, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry and Thomas Sowell.

Stanley Kurtz, Fred Barnes, Dinesh D’Souza, David Gelernter, Linda Chavez and William Kristol on Campaign ‘08.

Since when did Sarah Palin become Mike Huckabee?

The attacks on Sarah Palin by a number of prominent conservative pundits bear a striking resemblance to right-wing criticisms of the former Arkansas Governor at the height of his candidacy earlier this year. Both Palin and Huckabee have been accused of exploiting identity politics, pandering to ignorance and “extreme” religious faith, and giving the GOP a hostile, divisive image.

Huckabee’s greatest sin wasn’t that he gave a “redneck” image to the GOP, but that he was truly conservative only on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. It was sad that his candidacy became a culture-war flashpoint within the GOP—and it’s even sadder that the same thing has happened with Palin.

Conservatives who dislike Palin all seem to have the same thing in common: a disdain for what they regard as “southern-fried conservatism”, the sort of populism associated with figures such as Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson. Limbaugh and Dobson’s strong support of Palin clearly has much to do with the intense scorn she has faced from the right’s pundit class.

The anti-Palin right doesn’t fundamentally understand why she is so admired by “movement conservatives.” It’s not their fault; many of these pundits were not raised in the South or Midwest, thus they are totally divorced from the cultural reasons behind Palin worship.

Palin is seen by “movement conservatives” as a non-elite elite, for lack of a better term. They think it’s admirable that she has come as far as she has without family connections or an Ivy League education. She embodies the common-sense vision that they (accurately) believe was forced out of Washington decades ago. They think it’s terrific that someone of such strong Christian faith could be in such a strong position in such a secularized political/cultural era.

Anti-Palin conservative pundits miss the religious angle—which is, again, understandable. These pundits tend not to think in “culture-war” terms (though they generally agree with “movement conservatives” on the major social issues). These pundits are primarily concerned with economic and defense matters—and they feel Palin doesn’t measure up vis-à-vis these issues.

These pundits generally disliked Huckabee for the same reason: Huckabee was solid on the “culture-war” stuff and weak on almost everything else. They were stunned by Huckabee’s strong support among “values voters”; “values voters”, of course, regarded their anti-Huckabee brethren as scornful snobs.

The ideological segregation between Democrats and Republicans in America is intense, but it’s almost rivaled in its strength by the sub-segregation between secular-minded conservatives and religious conservatives. The conservative pundit class has a fairly large number of secular-minded conservatives, those who went to the major universities and who share some of the left’s cultural unease with the so-called “Jesusland” segment of the US. Religious conservatives, especially those in the South and Midwest, are equally suspicious of the pundit class, viewing them as being more interested in money and the military than in morality.

This sub-segregation leads to many idiotic charges and counter-charges on both sides. Can’t both sides agree that Sarah Palin is a highly intelligent, highly accomplished woman? Can’t both sides agree that the Republican Party cannot win elections without cultivating support from the very people who think Palin is the best thing since Reagan? Can’t both sides also agree that religious conservatives alone cannot guarantee GOP success, and that the party must also appeal to those who share the vision of the secular-minded conservative pundit class?

Things will get very nasty on the right if McCain and Palin lose—and even if the “McPalin” ticket wins, there’s no guarantee that ideological tensions won’t threaten to destroy the party during McCain’s term. The anti-Palin right won’t suddenly get in line if she becomes Vice President: these pundits will likely scrutinize her every word and move for signs of incompetence. They will in turn face more opprobrium from “movement conservatives”, thus worsening the already deep divisions on the right.

If McCain and Palin come up short on Election Day, these pundits will likely argue that Palin’s presence on the ticket drove away independents and moderates; in response, “movement conservatives” will accuse them of boldface lying, pointing to McCain’s own inadequacies as a candidate to explain away a loss. One way or another, the next four years will be controversial, and possibly painful, for the conservative movement.

One wishes for a way to reduce the anger that both sides of the right feel toward each other. One wishes in vain.

Eagle Eye tops the charts.

William Kristol on avoiding an economic crisis.

UPDATE: More from Jeff Jacoby and Dick Morris.

Hollywood legend Paul Newman passes away at 83. He was excellent in Absence of Malice, The Verdict, The Color of Money and Road to Perdition.

Fred Barnes, William Kristol and Stephen Hayes on the first McCain-Obama debate.

UPDATE: More from Howie Carr, Kevin Whalen, Michael Graham, Byron York and Dean Barnett.

Is this not the new 1968?

Racial tension. Political turmoil. Economic distress. It’s like we’ve entered some sort of time warp.

As was the case four decades ago, we have an unpopular war, an unpopular incumbent President, and an extremely bitter contest between the two men vying to replace him.

Like Hubert Humphrey, Barack Obama was the winner of one of the most contentious Democrat primaries of all time. The conflict between Obama and Hillary Clinton was every bit as vicious as the fight between Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. At times, the Democrat Party seemed at war with itself—and based on anecdotal evidence about Democrats dispirited with Obama, it appears that this silent war has yet to end.

Like Richard Nixon, John McCain failed in a prominent Presidential bid eight years ago, but is now running as a candidate who believes in unifying the country and placing the people’s interests ahead of partisan desires. He has been subjected to the same smears Nixon was subjected to four decades ago; just as Nixon was accused of exploiting racial fears to win the Presidency, so too has McCain been (falsely) charged with trafficking in bias in order to secure victory.

Joseph Biden is filling the old Edmund Muskie role from ’68: a Senator with “hardscrabble” roots who brought theoretical strength to the Democrat ticket. Muskie was also commonly seen as more qualified to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency than his GOP counterpart.

The GOP’s Vice Presidential nominee, Spiro Agnew, was the Sarah Palin of his era, a rising-star governor popular among conservatives and loathed by certain Republicans who wanted Michigan Governor George Romney to be Nixon’s second-in-command. Agnew complemented Nixon’s reformer image and played a crucial role in the former Vice President’s ultimate victory.

The ’68 election occurred during a time of vast social strife—and similar circumstances clearly exist in the ’08 election. Then as now, the country is divided over war, with Democrats advocating an expedited withdrawal from Vietnam/Iraq and Republicans opposed to the United States’ surrender. The gay rights movement has replaced the civil rights movement as the culture-war fault line, although racial politics have constantly surfaced in the ’08 campaign.

While the ’08 election has thankfully not witnessed the tragedies of the ’68 election, the social division of the past is still present in the present. The rhetorical attacks on Sarah Palin and the retrograde remarks on the Internet about Barack Obama have their roots in the racism and sexism of the ‘60s. The left-wing radicalism that began to take root in the Democrat Party in 1968 is in full flower in 2008. Conservative populism, which was on the rise in 1968, has become mainstream today.

We’re a better nation now than we were in 1968—but by how much? A truly progressive society would not have so many citizens spreading false stories about Obama’s religious affiliation. A truly advanced nation would not tolerate the raw misogyny that has been directed towards Palin, nor would it stand for the age-related sick jokes about McCain. (A truly tolerant society would have also rendered Biden a political outcast after his unfunny remarks about Indian immigrants in Delaware a few years back.)

From a conservative political standpoint, things are much better now than they were then. Obama is a figure to be reckoned with, to be sure, but he is not the statesman Humphrey was four decades ago. Comparing Biden to Muskie in terms of class and intelligence is like comparing Clay Aiken to Jackie Wilson in terms of musical ability. While the similarities between “McPalin” and Nixon-Agnew are obvious, there’s no evidence to suggest that McCain and Palin are as crooked as Nixon and Agnew proved to be.

It’s quite likely that the similarities between ’68 and ’08 will continue into Election Day itself. Between Obama’s staunch supporters and Palin’s proud promoters, between those who see McCain as another Bush and those who see Obama as another Carter, between those who don’t want Palin to be the next in line and those who think Biden is out of line, there’s a strong possibility that the winner could just barely beat the loser, as Nixon did in his razor-thin victory over Humphrey. Nixon’s victory failed to stop the boiling political tensions of the era, tensions that came to define the 1970s. If the winner of the ’08 election manages to prevent American society from similarly exploding in the next decade, that person will occupy a rare place in American history.

Michael Graham on American partisanship.

UPDATE: More from William Kristol, Dick Morris, Jed Babbin and Karl Rove.

SECOND UPDATE: From Peggy Noonan, Rich Lowry and Kim Strassel.

Thomas Sowell on the economic bailout.

UPDATE: More from David Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, George Will and John Fund.

Two extraordinary individuals will be on the Presidential ballot November 4.

One individual has already made history, bursting through barriers to become a political and pop-cultural icon. He dismantled the most powerful political machine of the modern era, captivating the hearts of millions in the process.

His opponent is just as remarkable: a man who survived nearly six years of captivity in an earthly hell, emerging from that experience with a broken body but an intact spirit. Since the early 1980s, he has distinguished himself as one of the most effective lawmakers in United States history.

The course of America will indeed change after November 4. After eight highly controversial years, the country desperately needs a fresh start. Whether one supports or opposes the political vision of George W. Bush, one must admit that the boundaries of ideological segregation have become more rigid over the course of his Administration. It is not entirely
Mr. Bush’s fault—the likes of George Soros and David Brock also played key roles in deepening the red-state/blue-state chasm—but it’s impossible to deny that America is much more divided now than it was eight years ago.

With an economy in turmoil and a War on Terror decades away from conclusion, it is crucial that we find a way to heal the gory wounds of partisanship. A house divided against itself cannot stand—and the residents of that divided house will not be able to prevent their enemies from destroying its foundation.

Let’s set aside questions of age and youth, experience and inexperience. By objective standards, both Barack Obama and John McCain meet the minimum standards for the Presidential office. McCain may have a few years on Obama, but his mind and soul are still young. Obama may not have decades of experience in the Senate, but he has certainly learned much of life in his forty-seven years on this planet.

The main question facing the voter is this: of these two men, which one can heal the partisan divisions that have set us at war with each other? After all, if Americans are not united on some level, we won’t be able to resolve our economic, security, and energy problems.

Here the contrast is stark. McCain has spent his entire public-service career pursuing bipartisan goals; he has demonstrated a hunger for commonality and a thirst for consensus. He has repeatedly defied the will of his own party in order to reform America’s campaign-finance system, combat damage to the environment, reduce government waste and avoid human rights abuses in the prosecution of the War on Terror. McCain has refused to turn himself into a human robot capable of nothing but expressing rigid ideology; he is a fluid, energetic thinker who is politically married to the best interests of the country, as opposed to the best interests of one party.

It is profoundly regrettable that the same cannot honestly be said of Obama. While Obama is the most intellectually gifted Democrat Presidential contender since the days of Adlai Stevenson, his beautiful mind seems to turn ugly whenever he confronts an idea that is not progressive or liberal in nature. He is not “elitist” in the non-political sense of the word, but the abject scorn he demonstrates for the philosophies of the Reagan-Gingrich era fits the political definition of elitism. Whenever he talks of conservatism or Republicans, he ironically seems to cling to bitterness.

America has already exceeded its partisanship capacity—and despite his many attributes, Obama promises to add even more bulk to the strained containers of political division. The Democrat triumvirate of a President Obama, a House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will usher in an era of liberal supremacy, one marked by absolute governmental hostility towards anything not associated with the political left. This will inspire more rage from the disenfranchised right, more rhetorical vehemence from the empowered left, and more intolerable hyper-partisanship in a country whose heart has been weakened by severe political attacks.

The country has to be put first. Obama and McCain are equally qualified, equally capable, equally fit to lead. Thus, the “tiebreaker” is as follows: which man is more likely to move America beyond the age of extreme partisanship—the man who has spent his entire political career doing so, or the man who has spent his entire political career not doing so?

America cannot bear four more years of “my party, right or wrong.” After the intense partisanship of the Clinton ‘90s and the Bush ‘00s, the country must now elect a Commander-in-Chief who can see beyond red and blue, a leader who will not scorn those of a different party or philosophy, a person who surely understands that we are, at the end of the day, one nation. That person, and that candidate, is John McCain.

Jonah Goldberg analyzes the mainstream media’s race-baiting on behalf of Barack Obama.

UPDATE: More from William McGurn and Erick Erickson.

Carla Howell on the proposed repeal of the Massachusetts state income tax.

Jonathan Last on everyday political mavericks.

Human Events interviews Newt Gingrich, who has just released a new book on the energy crisis.