Conservatives Might Try The Exodus Strategy

Peggy Noonan throws cold water on the Republican idea of "shrinking to win:"

All the metaphors here are tired, so let's stick with the big tent. A big tent is held up by tent poles. No poles, no tent. No poles, all you have is a big collapsed canvas. The poles that keep up the tent are the party's essential beliefs. Republicans over the next few years should define what each of their tent poles stands for—a strong defense being an obvious pole, a less demanding and intrusive government being another, a natural affection and respect for tradition and for life being a third . . .

But also, the people inside can't always be kicking people out of the tent. A great party cannot live by constantly subtracting, by removing or shunning those who are not faithful to every aspect of its beliefs, or who don't accept every pole, or who are just barely fitting under the tent . . . . Especially in those cases when Republican incumbents and candidates are attempting to succeed in increasingly liberal states, a certain practical sympathy is in order.

In the party now there is too much ferocity, and bloody-mindedness. The other day Sen. Jim DeMint said he'd rather have 30 good and reliable conservative senators than 60 unreliable Republicans. Really? Good luck stopping an agenda you call socialist with 30 hardy votes. "Shrink to win": I've never heard of that as a political slogan.

Well, if "shrink to win" doesn't work, what does?. Not compromise and negotiation. The conservative core of the Republican Party doesn't believe in negotiating--with ANYBODY. From the conservative point of view, negotiation is weakness and compromise is appeasement. That's the case whether it's with our foreign enemies like Iran, our foreign friends like France, or the domestic opponents of the Republicans like Harry Reid. It's also the case with Republicans who disagree with them. As the neo-cons say, they don't want to negotiate with "evil," they destroy it, and that's true whether the evil is North Korea, Arlen Specter, or Olympia Snowe.

Given the white southern tilt of Republican conservatives, the guiding principles of "no negotiation/no compromise" are rooted in the experience of being masters under the slavery and the master race under segregation. One key to white supremacy in the South was that whites were above the law when it came to race. In their own minds, white southerners thought they could do almost whatever they wanted with black people whenever they wanted. There was no need for negotiation, no need for compromise, and no need to worry about the law, public opinion, the media, or anything else. Far from being hidden and furtive, lynchings were community celebrations of the power of white people. Southern whites were masters of the racial domain and they exulted in reminding everyone of that.

Teaching in Kentucky, I'm continually reminded of just how slow and hesitant the retreat from white supremacy has been. Actually, a large number of the white students in my classes don't think anything has changed at all. The point isn't that racism continues (although it does), it's that a lot of the Southern whites involved in the conservative movement took their disgust with any idea of negotiation and compromise to Washington when they got elected to Congress, started serving in the Bush administration, or went to work for think tanks and lobbying firms.
Conservatives aren't going to open up to Northeastern moderates, African-Americans, Hispanics, or anyone else. They just don't believe in it.

Where does that leave conservatives? Given that conservatives don't think much of all that Jesus "turn the other cheek/love your enemies" stuff in the New Testament, they might consider the Exodus model of the Old Testament, Mormonism, or Israel. In the exodus model, one group packs up and moves to an area where they could dominate either as the only people or as an overwhelming majority. I once heard the right-wing economist Walter Williams on Rush Limbaugh's show fantasizing about an exodus in which conservatives would move to Texas, secede from the United States, and set up a free enterprise utopia. Part of the romance of secession in states like Texas and Georgia is to create a homeland in which conservatives no longer have to answer to the rest of liberal, multi-cultural America.

Maybe that's how conservatives will respond to the decline of the Republican Party--figure out a way to leave.

Mark Halperin Goes for the Hits Homer; or Is It Time?

Mark Halperin put this picture of a white guy who's not going to be nominated to the Supreme Court on a blog post entitled "White Men Need Not Apply."

The headline can be viewed as a protest against anti-racism and anti-sexism by a conservative-leaning journalist, an expression of white and male privilege, or evidence that Halperin's world is still ruled by Matt Drudge.

I see it as more of an effort to increase Halperin's blog hits.

The headline doesn't have anything to do with the actual blog post. I bet it was added so Halperin could look "outrageous," stir up "controversy," and raise his blog ranking.

And it worked.

So what's to be learned from this little tempest.

It might be that conservative journalists are in the same boat as conservative politicians. The only way they can draw attention to themselves is to be offensive.

Too bad they're so good at it.

The same can be said for RedState's Eric Erickson's offensive Twitter comments about David Souter.

Hey GOP! Worry about Texas!

Kimberley Strassel writes for the Wall Street Journal that Republicans need to figure out ways to win in the Northeast.

This is different from a message of outreach, which the party also desperately needs, but is accomplished primarily in the field. It involves members explaining to younger constituents why old-fashioned principles of choice and freedom still work for modern problems like health care. It means transmitting a welcome to those attracted to even one part of the conservative philosophy --free markets, strong national security, social values -- even if not all. It requires recruiting candidates who aren't held to stiff litmus tests, but who have a shot of winning in the Northeast, say, or Illinois.

But the Republicans need to worry about the basics first.

There's a great deal of commentary about the Republican Party becoming mostly a southern, Plains, and Rocky Mountains regional party.

But they're slipping in the South and on the Great Plains as well.

Obama won Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida and looked to have a shot in Georgia before fading. Some core Confederate states like South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Louisiana are safe. But the Republicans are much more likely to lose more of the South than they are to regain any footing in the Northeast or Midwest. If the Republicans are smart, they'll think first about protecting their dominant but slipping position in Texas and Georgia and maintaining their competitive status in Florida and North Carolina.

Better hold off on those dreams of reconquering the Northeast. There's a marker on Cemetery Ridge in Gettysburg, PA that marks the "high water mark" of the Confederacy.

But right now, the Republicans are barely putting up a fight in Virginia, let alone Pennsylvania.

The same is the story in the Plains and Mountains. The Republicans are safe in Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, and Kansas, but Obama won Montana and Colorado, came very close in Missouri, took an electoral vote in Nebraska, and was competitive in North Dakota and even Alaska for awhile.

The Republicans need to worry first about maintaining their position in Missouri and remaining competitive in Colorado and Montana before they think too much about flipping states on the West Coast.

The Arlen Specter defection highlights just how bad things are for the Republicans now. But the Republicans are like General Motors. Things are likely to get worse and the Republicans need to focus on protecting what they still have before they don't have anything at all.

Escape from Michele Bachmann: Republicans Launch New Group

It sounds like the Republicans are starting to try to pull themselves off the bottom.

Generally, people in government call for a commission when things go really bad and they don't know what to do about it. One way to tell that things are going horribly for the Republicans is that they're launching a "commission-like" entity entitled the National Council for a New America as an effort to re-brand the Republican Party.

Here's the official gobbledygook that Eric Cantor's office supplied to the Washington Post.

"The NCNA [National Council for a New America] will bring together citizens from across the country to begin a dialogue with the American people through a series of forums, town halls, and an online effort that will engage people in a discussion to meet our common challenges and build a stronger country through common-sense ideas," the letter says. "The NCNA will be a dynamic, forward-looking organization that will amplify the common-sense and wisdom of our fellow citizens through a grassroots dialogue with Republican leaders."

The letter says the group is not "a Republican-only forum." But GOP sources said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor played a top role in creating it. The group seems aimed at offering a conservative alternative at time when Democrats are lambasting the Republicans as the "Party of No" that simply attacks President Obama without offering policy ideas of its own. Its leadership does not include any Democrats.

"We do this not just to offer an alternative point of view or to bedisagreeable," the group's letter says. "Instead, we want to ask the American people what their hopes and dreams are. Since January, the President and the Democratic Majority in Congress have - rightfully so - put forward their plan for the future, now we must listen, learn and lead through an honest, open conversation with the American people that will result in building policy proposals that will yield the best results for our nation's long-term success."

Let me translate this into better political English. Republican political heavyweights have lost control over the Republican Party apparatus, the Republican Party brand, and the Republican Party message. Instead of Republican political, lobbying, and think tank elites disseminating a relatively unified Republican message, the heavyweights see a motley collection of has-beens, right-wing media types, political relatives, and lightweights out there killing the Republican Party with random chatter. Right now, the three most talked about Republicans are Michael Steele, Michele Bachmann, and Glenn Beck and that's just killing the Republican Party.

What the National Council for a New America (NCNA) represents is an attempt by the political leadership to re-assert control over the Republican message. The NCNA is going to send out big names like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, and Eric Cantor to talk about Republican views on energy, health care, and foreign policy in a way that seems less self-indulgent and stupid than Michele Bachmann. In this way, the leadership hopes to cut through all the "conservatives in crisis" chatter and re-establish themselves as the primary spokespeople for the Republican Party. The leadership also hopes to showcase potential Republican presidential candidates like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Bobby Jindal as well as "elder statesmen" like John McCain. If the Republicans hope to have a credible presidential campaign in 2012, they know they will have to start undoing the damage of the last nine years now.

Don't be surprised if Michael Steele isn't locked in a hotel room somewhere for the first NCNA event next Saturday in Virginia.

What are the chances of the NCNA initiative working? Like most commissions, the odds are something close to zero that they'll any impact. In the case of the Republican Party, the inmates really have seized the asylum and I seriously doubt that party elites are in position to regain control. Far from being a sign of rebirth, the NCNA looks more like evidence of how badly the Republicans are sinking.

Olympia Snowe Wrong--GOP Reaching for Diversity

In response to Arlen Specter switching from the Republicans to the Democrats, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe wrote an op-ed for the New York Times criticizing the Republican Party for its lack of diversity:

When Senator Jeffords became an independent in 2001, I said it was a sad day for the Republicans, but it would be even sadder if we failed to confront and learn from the devaluation of diversity within the party that contributed to his defection . . .

In that same vein, I am reminded of a briefing by a prominent Republican pollster after the 2004 election. He was asked what voter groups Republicans might be able to win over. He responded: women in general, married women with children, Hispanics, the middle class in general, and independents.

How well have we done as a party with these groups? Unfortunately, the answer is obvious from the results of the last two elections. We should be reaching out to these
segments of our population — not de facto ceding them to the opposing party.

The problem with Snowe's analysis is that thinking of diversity in such a conventional manner causes her to miss the current dynamic in the Republican Party. Generally, Americans think of diversity in terms of a specific language of race, gender, sexual orientation, and class. In race, white is the norm and African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans are diversity. With gender, it's a male "norm" and female "diversity." In terms of sexual orientation, heterosexuals are the norm and gay men and lesbians are diversity and middle-class people are the norm and poor people the diversity. This kind of social language is ground into people through all kinds of the media and public education. By the time American students start attending colleges like the one I teach at, most of them have adopted some version of diversity language as a second nature.

This kind of view is continuously and rightly criticized for defining the "norm" as white, male, heterosexual, and middle-class. But it's also hard to get away from. Like every college professor I know, I criticize diversity language and still end up relying on it all the same.

But the conventional language of diversity clearly does not apply to the current situation in the Republican Party. The Republican Party is becoming more diverse despite not fitting within contemporary diversity frameworks. I don't remember seeing a lot of African-Americans or Hispanics among the crowds at the recent Tea Party events. But the Tea Parties were still very diverse affairs with one world conspiracy theorists, Ayn Randians, survivalists, laissez faire purists, anti-immigration activists, libertarians, white racists, the far reaches of the anti-abortion right, and other kinds of groups in attendance. All these strands of white, right-wing sentiment are highly distinct in relation to each other as well as "mainstream" politics. The people who hold these views also highly conscious of that distinctiveness and they also have been very marginalized in American politics and American society to a certain extent. What's happening within the post-Bush Republicans is that Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, and Fox News are reaching out to these constituencies and bringing them into the Republican Party orbit. Unlike Olympia Snowe, I think they're making the Republican Party a significantly more diverse party in the process.

Still, reaching out to these groups is a strategy for losing lots of elections and declining as a party. In fact, the conventional language of diversity locates "diversity" in much larger groups than the groups to which the Republicans are directing their appeals. Women are 52% of the population and vote at higher rates than males. Independents constitute almost 30% percent of the voting public. Hispanics and African-Americans are both about 13% of the population. To the contrary, the strands of right-wing thought represented at the Tea Party rallies are much smaller populations. In fact, I doubt that all the groups who appeared at the Tea Party rallies would equal the Jewish or Muslim populations at about 3%.

The Republican Party is not shrinking because it's not trying to broaden its appeal, it's shrinking because it's broadening it's appeal to such small groups. In the wake of their 2006 and 2008 defeats, the Republicans have reaffirmed their commitment to conservative orthodoxy and are seeking growth by integrating smaller, heretofore marginalized categories of right-wingers into the party apparatus. In other words, they're more committed to the identity politics of the right than winning elections in any but the safest Republican areas.

If Olympia Snowe is going to keep thinking in terms of the conventional discourse of "diversity," she's either going to have to accept increasing marginalization within the Republican Party or leave the party.

Missed the Obama Event Tonight

I've never really liked politicians in action that much--must be the political scientist hostility to "politics" in me. So I tend to avoid Obama events even though I think he's doing an excellent job as president.

Ouch! Economy Shrinks by 6.1%

Suddenly, those "green shoots" and "glimmers of hope" don't look so promising. The Commerce Department reports today that the economy shrank by 6.1% in the first quarter. That's a lot worse than most economists expected. Unemployment is expected to top 10% by the end of the year.

Oops! Hundreds Sick from Swine Flu in NYC

I've always been a kind of pandemic skeptic and had hoped that the swine flu outbreak would be as limited as the avian flu outbreak several years ago.

That seems unlikely now though.

There's a report out of New York City that "many hundreds of schoolchildren" are sick with swine flu and reports of people in several countries who got sick as a result of traveling to Mexico.

Swine flu is not exactly the bubonic plague.

All the cases in New York have been pretty mild.

But it seems real.

Pressure Up Slightly on Maine Twins

Now that Arlen Specter has switched to the Democrats, the pressure is going to increase slightly on Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to do the same.

Collins and Snow are a little more liberal than Specter and have been rated somewhat higher on liberalism scales and lower on conservativism scales than the new Pennsylvania Democrat.

Ranking by American Civil Liberties Union: Collins: 71, Snowe: 86, Specter: 57.
Ranking by American Conservative Union: Collins: 36, Snowe: 28, Specter: 40.

Arlen Specter was barely enough on the liberal side of absolute moderation to justify his claim that the Republican Party had moved away from him. Collins and Snowe are both significantly on the liberal side and least as liberal as Democrats like Ben Nelson (who scores only 60% on the ACLU scale) or Mary Landrieu (at 75%).

Now that Specter is moving to the Democrats, the pressure will increase somewhat on Collins and Snowe to either follow the party line or do the same. From the conservative point of view, the Republican Party doesn't have anything to lose by pressuring the Maine senators to leave because they've already lost the filibuster and Snowe and Collins wouldn't have supported that many filibusters anyway. Actually, I've read somewhere that Collins (an acquaintance of mine from St. Lawrence University) is voting more than 50% with the Obama administration. Maine Republicans don't seem to be as conservative as Pennsylvania Republicans, but Snowe and Collins could find themselves under pressure to vote with the highly conservative Republican caucus as a matter of political identity.

This isn't to say that either Collins or Snowe is ready to switch parties. But they may find themselves such pariahs within the Republican Party that they'll eventually decide to make the change.

Time to Read Those Torture Memos

Mrs. RSI is leaving this morning for two days in Lexington. So, I'll have our daughters by myself. Hmm, it's probably a good time to finish reading those torture memos.

No Need to De-Nuke Iran

I like the last line of this rant from right-wing extremist columnist Mark Steyn about "post-exceptional America":

You'll recall that, in a gimmick entirely emblematic of post-exceptional America, Hillary Clinton gave the Russians a (mistranslated) "Reset" button. The button has certainly been "reset" – to Sept. 10, to a legalistic rear-view-mirror approach to the "war on terror," in which investigating Bush officials will consume far more time and effort than de-nuking Iran.

Given that Iran doesn't have any nukes, "de-nuking Iran" won't take any effort. Hopefully, we won't be creating a missile defense system to protect us against Iran's non-existent nukes either.

Swing Flu and Industrial Hog Farming?

We have so much to thank conservatives for. I just saw an article tracing the current outbreak of swine flu to the hog factory operations of Smithfield Foods in Mexico.

How does this connect to conservatives? One of the interesting dimensions of the problem is the reluctance of government officials in either Mexico or the U. S. to deal with the problems caused by factory farms. Local people in both countries complain about respiratory illnesses connected to manure lagoons on hog farms. But governments are reluctant to address the issue.

Like the global recession, swine flu might be a consequence of deregulation. Hopefully, the health authorities will be able to limit the spread and virulence of the disease.

With only 21% of the country identifying themselves as Republicans, it appears that conservatism is no longer as virulent as before.

Maybe that would be "Green" Nuclear Power

Today on the GOP radio broadcast, Republican senator from Tennessee LAMAR!! Alexander proposed building 100 nuclear power plants as an answer to the energy crisis.

But, given the degrading of the regulatory apparatus over the last 30 years, it's hard to believe that the federal government can adequately regulate the nuclear power plants we already have.

Let alone a hundred more!

How Far Are Conservatives from Being Terrorists?

My good friends at the right-wing magazine Human Events sent me an e-mail with the title "FIRE JANET NAPOLITANO: CONSERVATIVES NOT TERRORISTS."

Of course, this refers to the recent report on right-wing threats by the Department of Homeland Security. As vague and allusive as the report was, it stuck to known extremist configurations like the Klan, Nazis, skinheads, anti-abortion assassins, and the like and made nothing that could be reasonably construed as a reference to everyday conservatives.

Not that this stopped the right-wing media from accusing them of doing so.

But all's fair.

Now, the question is how close the various grades of conservatism actually are to right-wing extremism.

And the answer is that they've gotten closer.

Political conservatism is best thought of as a spectrum that is defined on its left by John McCain and on its right by Michele Bachmann and Glenn Beck. McCain is the Republican version of a neo-liberal Democrat. Neo-liberals like Joe Lieberman may be Democratic loyalists, but they view liberal Democrats as their main opponents and are open to Republican ideas. Conversely, John McCain is a Republican loyalist who has pushed Democratic good-government ideas like regulating tobacco and has often viewed the conservative Republican establishment as his main political opponent.

The right edge of conservativism used to be occupied by Tom DeLay, James Dobson, and Rush Limbaugh--conservatives who defined themselves in terms of relentlessly attacking liberalism and promoting an aggressive foreign policy, cutting domestic programs, and the goals of the religious right. The Bush administration adhered to this kind of hard conservative agenda to the extent that they thought politically feasible and this is one of the reasons why Dick Cheney was a popular guest on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity programs.

But political conservatism has shifted farther to the right since the election of Barack Obama as president. What Michele Bachmann and Glenn Beck have done is to integrate themes like the "one world currency," "re-education camps," and social breakdown into their everyday political discourse. These are militia, survivalist, and neo-Nazi ideas that are the province of figures like Alex Jones (a talk radio host who has raised money to rebuild David Koresh's Branch Davidian compound outside Waco).

To my knowledge, Alex Jones isn't involved in any "right-wing extremist" activities. But the fact that he uses and promotes right-wing extremist ideas means that he is only one degree of separation away from the kind of right-winger who could be a terrorist threat.

The fact that Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Newsmax, Human Events, and other outlets are using the same ideas within the dominant political/media apparatus gives them a second degree of separation from right-wing terrorism.

Despite his racism, homophobia, and general repulsiveness, Rush Limbaugh has been so far from the discourse of the "really extreme right" that one could reasonably speak of a "wall of separation" between political conservatism and right-wing extremism.

But no more.

With the new prominence of the "extreme right" within the Republican Party and its media apparatus, the separation between political conservatism and domestic terrorism is not nearly as solid as it used to be.

The separation is still there, but one wonders for how long.

GOP Plot to Promote Hugo Chavez Scores Early Success

Yesterday, Red State Impressions revealed the Republican plan to nominate Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez as their presidential candidate in 2012. Having noticed the enhanced popularity of socialism after the GOP criticized Barack Obama as a socialist, the Republicans now seek to make Hugo Chavez more popular by condemning Obama for shaking his hand. If they condemn Chavez often enough, the Republicans believe they can make him a viable presidential candidate. That way, the GOP won't have to suffer the humiliating defeat that would occur if they nominated Romney, Gingrich, or Sarah Palin.

Today, Republicans saw the first signs of progress with their plan.

According to Chris Bowers of Open Left, Hugh Chavez' nation of Venezuela is now more popular than the Republican Party, with Venezuela being rated positively by 42% and the Republicans by 39% (actually a high rating for the Republicans).

This is where the brilliance of Republican planners and consultants can be seen. With admirable objectivity, top Republicans now recognize that the Republican Party is repugnant to most of the American public and that actual Republican leaders like Sarah Palin are unlikely to become popular even if they don't have all the personal problems plaguing Palin.

So they've decided that the only way to be competitive is to nominate someone who has absolutely no connection with the Republican Party.

And who has less connection with the Republicans than a Latin American Marxist like Chavez.

But making Chavez more popular than the Republican Party is only the first step in the plan to nominate Chavez. Now the Republicans need to work on making Chavez as popular as Barack Obama himself.

No doubt, we'll very soon see Republican spokesmen comparing Chavez to Adolf Hitler.

If being criticized by the Republicans is the key to political popularity, this kind of scorching Republican criticism should boost Chavez' ratings even further.

I just hope it doesn't boost Hitler's ratings in the process.

Sympathy for Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter has a column out today on the death of her mother, Nell Husbands Martin Coulter. My sympathies to Ms. Coulter on the occasion.

Apart from recognizing the obvious fact that she's a gifted writer, I don't have a ton of positive things to say about Ann Coulter.

That's the price of being on the other side of the political fence.

But I'm glad Coulter remembers her mother for continually telling her "what a wonderful, precious daughter I was."

Everyone should have these kinds of memories.

The Republican Plan to Nominate Hugo Chavez for President

For those readers who thought the Republicans were clueless, you're about to see the error of your ways.

They have a plan for winning the 2012 presidential election.

They're going to nominate Hugo Chavez!!

The first step in the insidious plot unfolded today when Iowa Republican Steve King went on C-Span to claim that Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez had similar economic policies.

"But something that comes to mind when I see this image, too, is here are two world leaders that have both, within the last month, nationalized huge private-sector companies," said King. "In the case of President Obama, General Motors and Chrysler, at least in effect if not in actuality, and moved it down that path, when he fired the CEO of General Motors, and when he ordered that Chrysler merge with Fiat."

One might think that King's purpose was to make President Obama less popular by claiming that he was like the demonized Venezuelan leader.

But NO! Actually, the idea is to make Chavez more popular.

Aware that socialism became much more popular after the Republicans spent six months calling Obama a socialist, the GOP leadership has secretly decided to pump up approval ratings for Hugo Chavez by claiming that Obama is "just another Chavez."

Top Republicans consultants know that the American public has developed a strong conviction that anything the Republicans criticize must be good. As a result, they calculate that a year of Republican attacks will boost Chavez' approval ratings up to 50% and give the Venezuelan president a better chance of beating Obama than any of the leading Republican contenders. Republican planners don't worry about the constitutional requirement that presidents be natural-born citizens of the United States. Given that their conviction that Obama became president despite being a citizen of Kenya, Republicans believe that Hugo Chavez certainly would be eligible to run.

And that Chavez could win.

So, the next time you see a Republican criticize Chavez, just remember that they want him to be your next president.

If Destroying the Republican Party Makes You a Great President . . .

I was surprised to see an item on the Morehead State University web page on some recent writing by IRAPP professor and future colleague Mike Hail:

“Overall, President Bush was a very good president. He demonstrated the vision and character that define executive leadership,” said Dr. Hail. “Bush had both success and failure with his policy agenda. However, history will record George W. Bush as one of our greatest presidents and, in time, there will be a collective acknowledgement of his superb leadership in a time of war, international pressure, and economic challenge.”

Of course, all of this is nonsense. At best, George W. Bush will be rated in the second-lowest tier of presidents and his historical BFF's (best friends forever) will be Martin Van Buren, Chester A. Arthur, Grover Cleveland, and Franklin Pierce, and Richard Nixon. However, the current deep recession could turn into a depression and Iraq could still end up looking a lot more like Somalia and Pakistan than a stable democracy. If these things happen, Bush will be closely associated with helpless figures like Warren Harding, James Buchanan, and Herbert Hoover at the bottom of presidential rankings.

There's also a wild card that needs to be played out. The main thrust of my blogging over the last several weeks is that George Bush could be the last Republican president this country ever sees. In that case, future historians will be evaluating the role of the Bush administration in destroying a major political party and permanently marginalizing a political conservatism that was ascendant before he took office. It could very well be that killing the Republican Party will force historians and political scientists to view George Bush as a uniquely failed president.

Of course, it really is hard to beat Buchanan for ineptitude. So Bush probably won't be seen as the worst president in American history--just the biggest failure.

Not So Much Fun for Sir Allen

Jon Stewart made soon-to-be-indicted financier Allen Stanford famous for saying that he had "fun" being a billionaire.

But it's not so much fun anymore now that his main reputation is for running a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme.

Here's Sir Allen fantasizing about throttling a New York Times reporter.

Tears welling in his eyes, Mr. Stanford came out swinging in an interview Monday in his lawyer's office. He accused the Securities and Exchange Commission of squandering the assets of his financial companies and engaging in "Gestapo tactics", [TPMmuckraker ed note: that echoes a line DeGuerin first tried out on us] asserted the court-appointed receiver was "not up to the job" and accused the media of making him into a "caricature" of a maverick, unruly Texan who threw money around the Caribbean.

"It's devastated me to the core of my soul," Mr. Stanford said, "to see over 25 years of blood, sweat and tears -- my life's work -- to be taken from me."

He said the credit cards in his wallet were worthless and he did not even have money to pay his lawyer.

"It's debilitating, devastating, horrific," he said, wearing a double-breasted blue suit and conservative tie, his legs moving constantly. "But I am going to fight for my name and I am going to win."

The anger of the man came close to boiling over when he told a photographer taking his picture that the clicks of the camera shutter made his respond like "Pavlov's dog." He added, "I start to get an itch to grab somebody by the throat." Later in the interview, he asked the photographer if he wanted to take a picture of him strangling the reporter doing the interview.

It just broke my heart to read that.

Jesus Weighs In on Hugo Chavez Controversy

The United States is one of the few advanced countries where Jesus means something. Few people stop and consider the importance of Jesus in American life because we're saturated with things Jesus. There's a massive and diverse set of organizations that promote Christianity ranging from national church bureaucracies, television networks, big voluntary organizations like the Salvation Army, and local churches in your home town and mine. Christian social and political views are such a powerful force in American life that secular organizations routinely give into various kinds of pressure to promote Christianity. The fact that the specific influence of religious conservatives has dipped recently doesn't mean that Christianity is going away. If anything the election of Barack Obama as president means that African-American Christianity might become more nationally prominent and influential than it used to be.

Of course, Jesus doesn't have much to say about many of the controversies surrounding the functioning of government. Even though Jesus condemned wealthy people ("But woe to you who are rich/for you have received your consolation"--Luke 6:24), it's tough to figure out what Jesus would have to say about the bank bailout, the federal deficit, or other financial issues. Jesus liked weddings and alcohol, but it would be hard to apply his various sayings to issues like marijuana legalization, pornography, abortion rights, or gay rights.

But there are some issues where Jesus speaks clearly, authoritatively, and with some depth.

And one of those issues is how to treat one's enemies.

The question of how to treat your enemies has come up in relation to President Obama's conversation with Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the America's last weekend. Despite the fact that Chavez is a well-known opponent of American interests, Obama shook hands with the Venezuelan president, smiled while conversing briefly, and accepted a book from him. It was all very polite, cordial, even friendly in an official kind of way. Obama had let it be known during his campaign that he would treat American opponents very differently from George Bush and his attitude toward Hugo Chavez seemed to fulfill that relatively minor campaign promise.

Nevertheless, President Obama caught a lot of criticism from the Republicans concerning his general friendliness to the Venezuelan leader. Newt Gingrich was especially harsh in his criticism.

Gingrich argued, for example, that President Obama's decision to shake hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americans will be seen as proof that Chavez "is legitimate . . . ."

Meredith Vieira followed by asking about the value in mending U.S. relationships with other world leaders. Gingrich responded, "How do you mend relationships with somebody who hates your country? Who actively calls for the destruction of your country? And who wants to undermine you?" When Vieira noted U.S. talks in the past with Russia and China, Gingrich said, "We didn't rush over, smile, and greet Russian dictators."

Newt Gingrich has been heavily criticized by the Daily Kos and other sources for ignoring the fact that American presidents did "rush over, smile, and greet Russian dictators."

And, of course, the critics are right.

But I want to focus on the fact that Gingrich is a recent convert to Catholicism and could thus be expected to be particularly mindful as what Jesus has to say about how to treat your enemies.

According to Matthew 5:43-48 (New Oxford Annotated Bible):

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you great only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

But what if your enemies are really bad? Jesus actually gets more insistent about a person's obligations to those who are genuinely evil. He says in Matthew 5:38 "Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also."

The King James version is even more plain about the matter: "Resist not evil."

From the perspective of Jesus then, Barack Obama probably did not do enough to make Hugo Chavez his friend. Smiling, shaking hands, and accepting a gift from Chavez are all well and good, but Jesus demands that people are to "love" their enemies. As a result, following Jesus' prescription here would mean that Obama should have performed acts that would show a spirit of love toward the Venezuelan president. If Obama had Jesus in mind, he might have inquired after Chavez' family, asked about conditions in Venezuela, and perhaps inquired about how the United States could help Chavez in improving the conditions of the poor in Venezuela.

Newt Gingrich seems to think that showing consideration for one's enemies is a sign of weakness. To the contrary, Jesus viewed love for one's enemies as a sign of spiritual strength (the only strength that mattered). He emphasized that anyone could love their brothers, sisters, and friends. Even the lowest of the low--the tax collectors and publicans--could do that. Those who could be viewed as "children of heaven" needed to answer to a higher standard of loving their enemies.

And of course, for Jesus the highest form of love was the willingness to sacrifice one's life. But that's not a standard that poor humans like us (especially myself, being an atheist) should be expected to meet.

However, it's pretty clear from the biblical text that Jesus would have expected Obama to show more love toward Hugo Chavez not less.

Perhaps Newt Gingrich should be mindful of that.