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

Up tops the charts.

George Will on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s role in ending the 1994 baseball strike.

When will all the infighting stop?

Rarely has there been a blood feud more pointless on the battle involving former National Review Online colleagues Mark Levin and Rod Dreher over Levin’s use of intemperate language on his nationally syndicated radio show. This is a fight that neither man can win.

Certainly, I agree with Dreher (and conservative bloggers/Levin critics David Frum and Conor Friedersdorf) that conservative talk radio in general—and Levin’s program in particular—does not need to rely upon shock value in order to convince listeners that the left is wrong and the right is, well, right. Levin and other nationally syndicated superstars are talented and intelligent enough to generate ratings and revenue without having to resort to skits, sarcasm and slurs. However, the constant lamentations over talk-radio incivility serve no real purpose.

Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Monica Crowley aren’t going away anytime soon. While these figures are not above criticism, the reality is that conservatives who spend most of their time finding fault with these hosts will inevitably have their conservative credentials questioned by fans of these programs. Who does that benefit?

The feud between “Reagan conservatives” (the aforementioned talk-radio stars) and “Reform conservatives” (Dreher, Frum, Friedersdorf, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Daniel Larison, etc.) needs to end pronto. Neither side can afford to waste any more time on this silly squabble, not when progressives are unified as never before.

Although the right faces numerous cultural and demographic challenges, these challenges are not insurmountable: when conservatives are united, they usually cannot be defeated. A major problem for the right is that conservatives haven’t been united in quite some time.

Is Levin’s on-air obnoxiousness a problem for the right? Perhaps—but it’s a problem that the marketplace will resolve at some point. If Levin is really as reprehensible as Dreher, et. al. perceive him to be, he will find himself unable to expand beyond his core audience.

Do combatants on both sides of this feud realize how much fun the left is having seeing conservatives attacking each other? Progressives know that a divided conservative movement is a weak conservative movement. While center-right and solidly conservative figures keep denouncing each other, progressives make sure each faction of the left stays on point. That’s one reason Democrats emerged victorious in 2006 and 2008.

If “reformist conservatives” dislike the bombastic style of the top-ranked talkers, they have an option: don’t listen to their programs. It’s an option I’ve exercised: instead of constantly being aggravated by Limbaugh’s criticisms of those who aren’t conservative enough for his particular taste (like William Kristol), I choose instead to listen to such broadcasters as Hugh Hewitt and Michael Smerconish, who have their flaws but aren’t obsessed with ideological litmus tests. Limbaugh’s approach is fine for his listeners; the Hewitt-Smerconish approach is close enough for my comfort.

While I’m probably closer to the Douthat/Salam/Frum/Dreher/Friedersdorf side of conservatism (i.e., the “stop bringing up Ronald Reagan every five seconds” side), the goals of the “reformers” cannot be advanced by tearing down talk radio. Perhaps more “reformers” need to make their presence felt through such venues as Internet talk radio: the “reformers” won’t beat Limbaugh in the competition for listeners, but they could develop their own needed niche.

Can’t someone call a truce between the right’s fighting factions? Imagine how stronger conservatism would be if both sides worked together. A “reformer”-“Reaganite” alliance would introduce new ideas into the movement’s bloodstream and eliminate the generational divide on the right. From this alliance would be born a cleaner, less hypocritical conservatism, a renewed philosophy geared to the present day and the economic interests of working- and middle-class Americans of all backgrounds. If the “reformers” and the “Reaganites” started collaborating, they could also settle the dispute between libertarian conservatism and traditionalist conservatism—the dispute that lies at the heart of the current contentiousness.

Both sides of the right should not forget that there is a larger ideological conflict going on, a war of the worlds between progressivism and conservatism. The progressive forces are united, disciplined, focused on the goal at hand; in this respect, they are wiser than their conservative adversaries. The right needs to smarten up! Enough with these depressing disputes over tacky talk-radio rhetoric and “hard” vs. “soft” conservatism. I have my issues with the Limbaugh-Levin style, but I also recognize both men as brothers in the larger fight against the excesses of progressivism. Both “reformers” and “Reaganites” should have a place at the table. Sadly, that table is currently located in the middle of a house divided against itself.

Shay Riley on Ryan Frazier, a candidate for the US Senate in Colorado in 2010. He’s a tremendous speaker and seems to be a solid conservative: as long as he drops the “state’s rights” shtick from his rhetoric, he should have a bright future.

From David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer.

Former Solicitor General Ted Olson comes out in favor of same-sex marriage, and files a federal lawsuit to have California’s Proposition 8 nullified on equal-protection grounds. Olson, like Dick Cheney before him, presumably figures it’s wiser for libertarian-minded conservatives to acknowledge their real feelings on this issue, rather than maintain the illusion that they agree with social conservatives. More from the New York Times.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele implies that members of the RNC were somewhat reluctant to vote for him because of race. Way to maintain their confidence in you, pal.

It was great to be on Patriot Games Radio again last night!

If the Republicans cannot defeat President Obama in 2012, they might as well go out of business.

Obama is beginning to show signs of vulnerability, despite his strong approval ratings. It is beyond belief that the President continues to call for the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without having developed a comprehensive plan to deal with the aggressors currently being held in the facility. There are clear signs that Obama will be virtually impotent when it comes to dealing with North Korea. In addition, his selection of progressive jurist Sonia Sotomayor to fill the US Supreme Court seat being vacated by David Souter gives Republicans a flawless forum to highlight the problem of judges going beyond the Constitution.

A reorganized GOP would be able to stop Obama in his tracks despite his advantages. However, the signs of a reorganized party are still few and far between. Republicans won’t get anywhere running off at the mouth about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s apparent smearing of the CIA: the current controversy is simply not strong enough to force her resignation. Relying on the likes of former Vice President Dick Cheney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to make the case against Obama’s vision isn’t conducive to long-term success either: the sight of Cheney and Gingrich won’t make independents embrace the GOP again (regardless of the accuracy of their claims against Obama).

What the Republicans need is a civil, convincing message, preferably one delivered by figures not connected to the scandals of the 1990s and the screw-ups of the 2000s. Simple, strong statements against Obama’s positions and in favor of reasonable alternatives could improve the GOP’s badly damaged image in the mind of the average voter.

It won’t be enough to lambaste Obama for wanting to close Guantanamo. Republicans must make the case for keeping Guantanamo open in a way that doesn’t come across as excessive fear-mongering and doesn’t invoke 9/11 every five seconds. It shouldn’t be too complicated to explain to average Americans that Guantanamo detainees are too radical and too dangerous even to be held in US maximum-security prisons, and that Guantanamo, despite its negative reputation, is best suited to keep these detainees away from the tools they need to inflict harm upon the homeland.

It won’t be enough to accuse Obama of weakness on North Korea. The Republicans must clearly and coherently explain why it is so important for America to project strength. If North Korea feared the United States’ reaction to the prospect of nuclear testing, it wouldn’t dare provoke us. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who has long suggested that the US not play patty-cake with North Korea, should be consulted to help the Republicans advocate an effective response to the country’s saber-rattling.

Demonizing Sotomayor will also fail as a strategy: while Sotomayor does strike conservatives as a stereotypical liberal judge, she’s clearly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice and has an impressive personal story. Just because the Democrats almost got away with keeping Clarence Thomas away from the High Court in 1991 despite his own qualifications and back story does not mean that the Republicans will be able to successfully do the same. Instead of trying to figure out ways to block Sotomayor (even if Republican Senators and conservative activists managed to torpedo the nomination, Obama would just find another “empathetic” judge to nominate to the bench, perhaps someone far more unpalatable to conservatives), the Republicans would be better off making a strong case against judicial activism in the court of public opinion. Without resorting to scare tactics, the Republicans could make the argument that a Supreme Court Justice must be “empathetic” only to the rights and restrictions established by the Constitution, not to any other factor or element. Stated effectively, this argument could have far more resonance with the American people than Obama’s vague vision of “empathy.”

Only a strong Republican Party (and a strong candidate) can defeat Obama in 2012. Will the party reacquire strength in time? Or will the GOP continue to look to the past, continuing to express a Reagan fixation in a manner that generates liberal laugher and conservative vexation? The GOP desperately needs to get its act together. The party needs to have a reasonable, effective message, and also needs to reestablish itself as a true center-right entity: it’s fine to effectively ask Colin Powell to leave, but the party’s leaders had better ask the “Where’s Obama’s birth certificate?” crowd to hit the road right along with him. While the prospect of an Obama loss seems ludicrous right now, stranger things have happened. However, Republicans cannot defeat him by telling the country what they are against. They must explain to the voters what they are for.

Stephen Carter on Sonia Sotomayor.

UPDATE: From CBS News, Mark McKinnon and Fred Barnes.

SECOND UPDATE: From Reihan Salam, Michael Smerconish and Hugh Hewitt.

John Gardner on the North Korea situation.

UPDATE: More from the Wall Street Journal and Jed Babbin.

From David Brooks and Ross Douthat.

Is RNC Chairman Michael Steele finally getting his act together?

Am I the only one who doesn’t give a damn about Colin Powell?

The good general should never have joined the Republican Party to begin with; if you put some sodium pentothal into the man, even he would admit that his life would have been much better if he had stayed 93 million miles away from the GOP. Powell never shared the party’s conservative positions, and seemingly joined the party back in the mid-1990s in a misguided attempt to move the party back to the pre-Reagan era in terms of its policies. He should have realized long ago that such an effort would not be successful.

Powell’s performance on the May 24 edition of Face the Nation was fairly pointless. Why doesn’t he simply ignore criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh? It’s not as though Powell’s supporters really care about Limbaugh’s opinion of him—why should he?

The only important thing Powell said on the broadcast was his declaration that the GOP talks a good game about reducing the size of government, but never actually does it. Undeniably true; Powell’s old boss permanently destroyed the GOP’s credibility on the issue of limited government. Other than that, Powell should have just stayed home.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge’s May 24 appearance on CNN’s State of the Union was far more interesting. The pro-choice Republican declared that the GOP should not demonize those who deviate from the party’s platform in certain respects. “[The way for] the Republican Party to restore itself is not as a regional party but as a national party. We have to be far less judgmental about disagreements within the party and far more judgmental about our disagreement with our friends on the other side of the aisle.” He went on to declare that Limbaugh “…articulates his point of views in ways that offend very many…it does get the base all fired up, and he’s got strong following. But, personally, if he would listen to me — and I doubt if he would — the notion is, express yourselves, but let’s respect others’ opinions. And let’s not be divisive…Let’s lead our party based on some principles that have been very much a part of who we are for decades, and let’s be less shrill, [and] not attack other individuals. Let’s attack their ideas. Let’s explain, in a rational, thoughtful, responsible and reasonable way why our ideas and our approach are more acceptable, why they should be more acceptable to the average citizen.”

Republicans would be well advised to blow off Powell and listen to Ridge. The path to future Republican/conservative success cannot be found in senseless proclamations about the Democrats’ socialism or incoherent online ads mocking scandal-scarred House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It cannot be found in after-the-fact complaints about mainstream-media bias. It can be found in the development, explanation and advocacy of new ideas that are consistent with conservative principles and more effective than the remedies President Obama proposes.

The GOP can survive without Powell, but it needs figures like Ridge in order to have an appeal beyond the party’s base. Ridge is wrong (from a conservative perspective) on the issue of abortion for birth-control purposes, but he doesn’t seem to hold contempt for conservative members of the GOP, nor does he seem embarrassed by the party’s main philosophy. He is truly a center-right figure, the sort of politician who could help the party ward off rump status.

Despite my disagreement with Ridge on the question of abortion, it would be nice to see someone like Ridge have a viable shot at being the GOP nominee in a future Presidential election. Unlike John McCain, Ridge wouldn’t come across as a washed-up politician just going through the motions. He’d change the GOP’s damaged image; it would be virtually impossible for the left to depict him as an incompetent or a blind ideologue.

Ridge could be the GOP’s future: Powell should never have been part of the GOP’s past. Powell comes across as someone who wants two political parties that believe in the same thing; Ridge comes across as someone who believes that the GOP should have an ideological contrast with the Democrats, so long as the party doesn’t chase out everyone with dissenting views on one or two issues.

Powell has no constituency and no credibility; one cannot even listen to his voice without remembering that this was the guy who gave that peculiar presentation to the UN Security Council a few years back. Although he is also tied to the controversial Bush years, Ridge’s words have more weight and make more sense. The GOP should hit the mute button when Powell speaks—but when Ridge talks, they should turn up the volume until the whole neighborhood can hear it.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian tops the charts.