Karl Rove & the Permanent Campaign: Part II of a Response to MIFF

Read Part I

Yesterday I had a revelation that little Ralphie Nader was right about something in 2000. There is some sense in which both major parties are th same: both are, for the most part, too busy trying to win elections to actually have time to govern. Too bad he thought he had an actual solution to this problem.

I came to this revelation after floating an argument to MIFF about why I thought the Bush Adminstration was seeking 'total and permanent control over the government.' My argument was basically, well, it's no big secret that Karl Rove says that's the goal.

It is widely reported, from sources across the political spectrum, that Karl Rove's ambition is, in the words of a Time magazine profile of him, "creating a locked-in Republican majority".
Especially apropos to the general theme of this blog right now is this statement by Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, which he made in the course of an article attacking Howard Dean:

Dean's false statements included this: "Karl Rove and others have talked about going back to the McKinley era before there was any kind of social safety net in this country." Not true. What Rove has talked about is how the McKinley presidency touched off a Republican era in American politics. Rove would like Bush to begin a new era of Republican dominance--but he never said this should be done by removing the safety net.

MIFF was unimpressed with this argument, and wrote:

If you mean that Rove seeks Republican dominance by some sort of force -- such as by outlawing Democrats and suspending elections -- I would again ask that you present some type of evidence to that effect. If you mean it more figuratively -- such as Rove desires Republicans to win every presidential election from now until eternity -- then I would submit that that is the goal of every political group, e.g., Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, etc. Is Terry McAuliffe, or any other Democrat (including yourself), now plotting to win seven out of the next eight elections (roughly a generation) but to lose one of the eight because otherwise it would unpermissably mean "Democratic dominance for at least a generation."

In this post, I'll address MIFF's second objection. I do believe that the Bush Administration is increasingly showing itself willing to ally itself with undemocratic elements and strategies to solidify its dominance, but let's leave that for another post. Assume that Rove just wants to win, forever and ever. If that's the goal of every political group, as MIFF claims, then who am I to use it against the Bush Administration?

Well, I would like to think that the goal of a political group is not simply to win, but to govern. If the focus is on winning, when exactly does the governing part come in? I'm not the only person to have this wild and crazy idea -- I refer you to the year-old Esquire article, again, in which a senior administration official told Suskind "Don't you understand?…We got into the White House and forfeited the game. You're supposed to stand for something . . . to generate sound ideas, support them with real evidence, and present them to Congress and the people. We didn't do any of that. We just danced this way and that on minute political calculations and whatever was needed for a few paragraphs of a speech." Here's another official, talking to Suskind (this quote comes off Google's cache of Suskind's article, as sometime in the last week or two Suskind has made the article unavailable except to users with passwords) right after the midterm elections:

"Maybe the last two years wasn't just a case of benign neglect," says this source, with whom I spoke extensively throughout October. "Maybe it was brilliant neglect."

He went on to explain: From early on, Rove may have been focused on energizing the core, the far Right, for the midterms. An attempt to push centrist policies through a divided Congress would have done anything but that, and it would have violated the prime strategic directive: don't alienate the right wing like the first President Bush. Karl's remedy: co-opt the policy-creation process; put it in a lockbox until after genuine Republican control is established.

"Now the troops are ready to march," the source says. "The question is, What will we do? Will we finally put together a thoughtful policy team to create a coherent plan for America's future, or just push through one political favor after another dressed up like policy? I guess it's really for Karl, Karl and the president, to decide."

Apparently there's a name for this kind of politics dressed up as policy: The Permanent Campaign. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, published a book in 2000 about it. A summary of the book on their website notes:

At least three implications of the permanent campaigning on issues deserve attention. First, organized interests often campaign a lot more on issues than on electoral politics. Second, the infusion of permanent campaign tactics and funding into interest-group politics contributes to the decline of deliberation in Congress. If the stakes are high and interests have "invested" a great deal in both politicians and the framing of issues, why would they encourage deliberation? Finally, the permanent campaign on issues favors those interests that can bring the most resources to bear in a context in which the disparity in resources is usually immense. The very power of constructed narratives allows moneyed interests to make the case that they are acting to benefit citizens and consumers as part of their overall argument on a given policy.

The Permanent Campaign is not the fault of either the Republican or the Democratic parties, and Karl Rove, much as I'd like to blame him for it, did not invent it, though some have argued that the problem has gotten much, much worse in the current administration. So MIFF is right to ask whether the Democrats are any different from Republicans in wanting to win. There appear to be structural problems in society right now, and I certainly wouldn't pretend to know the solution to them (I'm not Nader). But the fact that neither party has the time or inclination to formulate and enact real policies doesn't mean there's no difference between them.

If all I'm going to get out of government is political favors, who would I rather those favors go to? People who are already fabulously wealthy and the corporations they run, plus Jerry Falwell? Or, say, everyone else?

Sure, I wish there were something behind door number three, but there ain't. So, Bob, I guess I'll go with door number two.

Just as I suspected...

The more I've been reading about conservatives and reading the stuff from the conservative think tanks, the more I've been wondering why the hell they would support President Bush anyway. Then here's this article in the Times today about about it:

"At this point, I think that conservatives sold out their small government philosophy and replaced it with a philosophy of whatever will get them re-elected," said Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization. "Neither party is committed to smaller government and less spending. Those who are still standing for fiscal conservatism are frustrated."

Further observations on the horse race

Happy New Year to all of our readers. I'm going to sneak this piece in between Amy's missives and thus give your brain a rest for a few minutes. Amy's entries make you think, mine probably make you angry, especially if you are a Dean supporter. My drift has definately been more and more into anti-Dean camp. But a word in my own defense. "It isn't my fault. He made me do it." How could he turn into such a bad candidate so quickly? Was he saying idiotic things all along and nobody was noticing or did the pressure get to him finally? He has come up with a neat trick however to prevent any one of these "gaffes" from killing his campaign; as soon as one looks like it is taking hold and sinking into the public psyche he makes another one, even worse, and we completely forget about the prior one. So far it seems to be working.

There has however, been a subtle but perceptible shift in the race in the last several days. With the 4th quarter fund raising numbers unofficially out many pundits are now seeing this as a two-way race, with Clark clearly having the resources to carry the fight well into the primary season. In addition Clark is continuing to improve as a candidate at the same time that Dean's weaknesses are becoming more obvious to even some of his supporters.

Dean's camp has come up with a unique argument which unfortunately has some merit, about why only he can beat Bush. Not that he's a better candidate with better ideas, but rather that he's the only one that can match the Bush team dollar for dollar and can thus defend themselves better from the Rove smear campaign. The smear campaign will surely come, but if Dean's the nominee there isn't enough money in Fort Knox to counter it. There's just too much on the record already, too many flip flops, too many misstatements, too many retractions, too many half truths and untruths, too many video clips of an angry man shouting at his audience. The Dean candidancy has already been fatally wounded by the candidate himself. All Karl Rove and company will need to do is kick the dirt into its grave and read the eulogy.

Even a candidate as strong as Clark is going to see a withering attack on his character,ideas, gender, patriotism and anything else they can think of. That's after all why they raised 200 million to fight a non-existant primary opponent. This will be very hard to counter without any resources. I have to hope that there is a committee of "sons of bitches" deep in the bowels of the Clark campaign strategizing about how to deal with this problem. I would hate to work like hell to get Clark nominated only to see the Republicans destroy him before the campaign has officially begun. Of course maybe Dean will lend the party his donor's list so we can raise the necessary money to fight a smear. For some reason I don't think that's likely, but we'll see.

Mickey

The Liberal Media Bubble Project (LMBP): Today, The Cato Institute

In a previous post I proposed to research the conservative mind. Today, I report on my initial research for the project, henceforth to be known as the Liberal Media Bubble Project.

So far, I've been reading policy papers at the websites of conservative think tanks. What I find amazing is how there will be policy papers that make perfect sense to me, and that I can heartily agree with, and then right next to them, absolutely ridiculous things. For example, take The Cato Institute. I was ever-so-pleased to see a Cato Institute commentary on why local governments shouldn't waste money on baseball stadiums. I know it seems un-American, but I hate baseball. Meanwhile, I don't see why my tax money should have to subsidize baseball stadiums so that everyone in baseball can make lots of money. So I'm all for someone actually objecting to the practice. But then, take this book on global warming. The author apparently argues "why should we complain about a four- or five-degree increase in temperature when most people prefer to live in warmer climates, and millions have moved and changed jobs in order to do so?" Huh? And another "Huh?!"

More later. Max and I gotta go do something non-politics-related now, like watch an episode of Angel.

Hatred, yes, but not quite mindless : Part I of a Response to Michael the Independent From Fairfax

Several days ago I received an email from someone I will call Michael The Independent From Fairfax (who, as stated in my last post, should not be confused with all the other Michaels, and who will be abbreviated as MIFF). Michael had read parts of The Isikoff Report on Politics, especially my Hanukkah Message, and was writing to complain about my characterization of the Bush administration as 'authoritarian' and as wanting 'permanent and total control over the government.' Michael couldn't understand why someone who obviously recognized the importance of winning Republicans and Independents to my cause would say something that most of those people believed not only to be false but patently false.

I asked Michael's permission to quote his letter in the blog, which he gave, and so I quote:

Do you have any evidence whatsoever suggesting that Bush seeks "permanent and total control over the government?"

[...]

I don't speak for other independents, of course, but I suspect that many of them are equally repulsed by your silly comments about Bush and authoritarianism. You remind me of certain hardcore Republicans in the 1990s who not only disagreed with Clinton's policies, but felt compelled to vilify him and accuse him of every transgression under the sun. They let partisanship blind them to reality, and so it is with you and your ilk. I'll be able to vote Democratic again someday but I think that at the very least it's going to take a lopsided loss next November to show the Democrats that mindless hatred is no substitute for reasoned debate.

This post is the first part of my response to MIFF, who may be repulsed but who I hope has kept on reading anyway.

First of all, MIFF may find it amusing to hear that in the first draft of my Hanukkah message, I said something he'd find even sillier than the stuff I did end up saying. In the first draft, I actually called the Bush government "fascist". I asked my mom to help me edit the message, though:

Mom: You can't call the Bush adminstration fascists.
Me (whiny): They are fascists.
Mom: People will stop reading once they see the word fascist.
Me (even whinier): Paul Krugman called them fascists. [Note: this is not actually, to my knowledge, true. Paul Krugman did call them "a revolutionary power", however.]
Mom: You're not Paul Krugman.
Me(whiniest daughter ever): Are you saying I don't have the credibility to say that the current administration is fascist?
Mom: That's exactly what I am saying.

So out went "fascist" and in went "authoritarian".

Apparently, I don't have the credibility to say that either.

Before everyone gets all up-in-arms about my saying "fascist," please read this fascinating essay by famed blogger Orcinus on fascism and whether or not the Bush adminstration can be called fascist by reasonable people. The short answer is no, and since the essay is some 85 pages long, I quote here the money shot (more prosaically known as the conclusion):

So these essays were written in the hopes of resurrecting a proper understanding of fascism -- what it really is, how it operates, why it is in fact very much alive and with us today. Part of my purpose, of course, was to persuade liberals to drop the inappropriate references to fascism, mostly by coming to grips with its real nature and not its imagined one.

My deeper purpose, though, was to sound a call to arms for Americans of every stripe who believe in democracy, because ultimately those are the institutions that are most endangered by fascism. Until the strands of far-right extremism that have insinuated themselves into the fabric of mainstream conservatism are properly identified and exposed, they will continue to wrap themselves around it and through it until its corruption is complete. And when that befalls us, it will probably be too late to stop it.

As the War on Terror, instead of combating the rise of fascimentalism, transforms itself into a War on Liberals; as conservatives increasingly identify themselves as the only "true" Americans; as Bush continues to depict himself as divinely inspired, and the leader of a great national spiritual renewal; as the political bullying that has sprung up in defense of Bush takes on an increasingly righteous religious and violent cast; and as free speech rights and other democratic institutions that interfere with complete political control by conservatives come increasingly under fire, then the conditions for fascimentalism will almost certainly rise to the surface.

These conditions remain latent for now, but the rising tide of proto-fascist memes and behaviors indicates that the danger is very real, especially as fascimentalist terrorist attacks take their toll on the national sense of well-being and security. It may take fully another generation for it to take root and blossom, but its presence cannot be ignored or dismissed.

European fascism was a terrible thing. An American fascism, though, could very well devastate the world.

Readers should take note, then, that I only called the Bush Administration fascist in a draft, and I have since done the responsible thing and researched the allegation, finding it, so far, groundless, and that my mom is a very smart woman.

Parts II and III, to follow: Bush Administration 'authoritarian'? and Does Bush Administration seek 'permanent and total control over the government,' as alleged?

Damn those judges and their pesky judgment

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist issued a year-end statement complainingg that Congress was eroding judicial independence, in the form of a measure passed under cover of the Amber Alert "we're protecting your kids from sexual predators (or at the very least, custody disputes)" bill:

The measure at issue is known as the Feeney Amendment, for its sponsor, Representative Tom Feeney, Republican of Florida. It instructed the United States Sentencing Commission, the agency that sets the guidelines, to issue new rules to "ensure that the incidence of downward departures is substantially reduced." The commission was ordered to maintain judge-by-judge records of sentencing departures and to send the files to the attorney general, who in turn is obliged to provide the information to the Judiciary Committees of both houses.

Now, you could argue that it only serves Rehnquist right to have Congress interfering with his judgment, since some of us think his judgment unduly interfered with, say, the electoral process. But neither development bodes well for the future of our democracy. Both represent the growing consolidation of power in the hands of a minority. Both appear to be part of a concerted, and at least loosely organized effort to establish a permanent Republican government.

Yeah, call me shrill if you want. I'm gonna get my dad to write a post about what another four years of the Bush Administration will mean to the Supreme Court, and in turn what that will mean to the country for the next 50 years, cause that's a big reason he got involved in the whole politics thing this year, and it's a big reason that moderate Republicans and Independents should think real, real hard before supporting Bush in 2004.

My next post is gonna be about the 'effort to establish a permanent Republican government', which sounds like a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' thing, but turns out just to be pretty much what Karl Rove says he's trying to do, and apparently what he pretty successfully managed to do in Texas.

Futures Traders Less Sure About Dean Nomination

The Iowa Electronic Markets' Market in DNC winner futures has good news for us today. This graph shows Dean's price falling, and Clark's rising.

Bush-hatred -- the new new thing

A thoughtful email correspondent of mine confusingly named Michael, even though he is neither my father, Mickey, nor Michael Isikoff (who we are not, as we state in our header...), sent me links to a pair of point-counterpoint articles (nope, not the kind The Onion runs) at the Washington Post about Bush hatred:

Bush-Hatred: Fearful Loathing . . .
. . . Or a Rational Response?

Michael agrees with the "Fearful Loathing" article, which has the following concern about self-proclaimed Bush-haters:

If "hate" were used loosely (as in, say, "kids hate spinach"), the word choice would be harmless. But people who claim to hate really mean it, and that's serious. It signifies that you've gone beyond discussion, compromise or even (to some extent) coexistence. The differences are too basic to be bridged. Genuine political hatred is usually reserved for true tyrants, whose unspeakable acts of brutality justify nothing less.

More than the language is butchered. Once disagreement turns into self-proclaimed hate, it becomes blinding. You can see only one all-encompassing truth, which is your villain's deceit, stupidity, selfishness or evil. This was true of Clinton haters, and it's increasingly true of Bush haters.

Talking about an emotion like hate, though, is different from talking about ideas. In my earlier post about hating Bush, I quoted Jonathan Chait's Bush-hatred article to combat the accusation that Bush-hatred was a sign of irrationality. Chait argued that it was perfectly rational for some people to hate Bush. At the time, I agreed, but I see now that I fell prey to some logical error that I don't know enough about logical reasoning to name properly (anyone, anyone?). In fact, all emotions are essentially irrational to the extent that they are not governed by the intellect. But to admit that one has an irrational emotion is not to admit that one is, fundamentally, irrational. If that were the case, no one would be capable of rational debate, since we all experience emotions. (Yes, some people seem not to experience emotions as the rest of us do, but we don't ordinarily find that they function more rationally in the world than the rest of us. In fact, they usually appear irrational, since much of what we commonly think of as rational behavior is actually mediated by our emotions. And yes, I did just string together a bunch of ideas from popular science writers to make that argument, but I still think it's basically sound.)

Okay, back to Bush-hatred. It ain't rational, but it is understandable.

Hence, admitting to Bush-hatred does not automatically mean that "you've gone beyond discussion, compromise, or ... coexistence", nor is hate automatically blinding. Actually, I'd argue that those of us who can admit to the emotion and understand its sources have a better chance of coming to a reasonable accommodation with the hated than those of us who feel hate but do not acknowledge it.

So there's my response to those articles, Michael from Fairfax, and thanks for pointing them out to me. I hate Bush, but it doesn't mean I am incapable of appreciating his chocolate-chip cookies.

Bursting my 'liberal media bubble'

The Dean-o-phobe recently noted that many Dean supporters seem to exist in a bubble:

THE DEAN BUBBLE: One of the most disturbing things about Dean and his hard-core supporters is that they give the impression that they know nothing at all of why President Bush is successful, and therefore what it takes to beat him. Read the pro-Dean blogs, and the you come away with the view that Bush is strong because he's ruthless and has lots of money, and therefore if the Democrats are also ruthless and raise lots of money, they can beat him. This ignorance is compounded by the fact that many Deanies seem to exist in a isolated cultural milieu in which everybody is secular, socially liberal, and antiwar. They can't fathom why those things might hurt Dean in a general election because they don't ever talk to or read anybody who thinks differently. Dean's Internet networking--which has had lots of positive effects on American politics--has probably intensified this cloistering, by creating intellectual ghettos on the web where true believers can interact, undisturbed by those who don't share their faith.

This criticism of Dean people strangely echoes right-wing pundits who complain about a 'liberal media bubble' (See, for example, this charming article from NewsMax on the topic) as the obnoxious conservative bloggerPolipundit points out.

This got me thinking. Maybe I do live in a liberal media bubble, of sorts. Much of my raw news I get from the AP, just like everyone else (only that's the problem, isn't it? Everyone else doesn't get their news from the AP...). But most of the commentary and editorial stuff I read is, if not liberal, can certainly not be called conservative, as many conversatives today seem to understand the word.

I dispute the common conservative accusation that, for example, the New York Times is a radically left-wing publication, (You want radically left-wing, check out The Socialist Worker. And no, despite having referred to myself as a "Clark Socialist" in some previous post I'm too lazy to link to at the moment, I am not a regular reader of that particular rag.) However, I can refuse to buy into the 'liberal media bias' notion and still recognize that my own inclinations have not led me to spend a lot of time carefully studying the policy papers of the Heritage Foundation, et. al., and trying to understand conservatism as a movement.

As a result, it's true that I am often baffled by conservative viewpoints on things. I grew up in Titusville, Florida, a place that is definitely not your Jewish Grandparents' Sunshine State, so I'm not quite as baffled, as, say, someone who grew up on Park Avenue and then moved to Vermont might be. [Or, for that matter, as baffled as someone who grew up in Newton, Massachusetts, and now lives in Brookline. -- Max] I mean, I spent my childhood trying to explain to my Southern Baptist friends that I really didn't need converting, thanks anyway. (And this is starting to sound like a "I have plenty of xxx-type friends" defensiveness thing, so I'll shut up about my outsider childhood in rural Florida now.) Still, I don't go back to my hometown much anymore, and now I live in a place where my U.S. Congressional Rep is Barney Frank (and a biiiig shoutout to you Mr. Frank!), so it's fair to say I live now in a bit of a bubble.

Therefore, I've decided to expand my horizons a bit. Now, I'll tell you right now I'm not interested in Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and their ilk. I'd like to understand reasonable, thoughtful conservatives. Because frankly lately I've been feeling that the current administration isn't really making them happy either, so maybe if I offered a good-faith attempt to understand what it is they want out of government, really, then I can convince them that Bush is not the way to get it.

Anyway, this begins my researches into the world of conservative political and policy thinking. At my local used bookstore I picked up a copy of The Concise Conservative Encyclopedia as a starting point. Amazon seems to also suggest I read The Conservative Mind, so I guess I'll see if I can order a copy from the library. Suggestions from conservative readers about well-thought-out conservative publications (not blogs at this point, the blogverse is way too big, I want to start with stuff that has to go through editors first...) are welcome.

In between agitating for Clark (whose candidacy, I remain convinced, can bridge the gap between thinking conservatives and liberals in the country) and against Dean, I will keep everyone updated on my research into the conservative mind.

Straight talking Howard

Howard Dean has portrayed himself as the straight talking nonpolitician of the primary season and asked us to support him on that basis. He has said he doesn't tailor his speeches to his audiences, but tells it like it is to each and every one. Well many can and will dispute that and there are certainly numerous examples one could use to make the point. (His changing views on Nafta, social security, and medicare are but three examples). But the latest example takes my breath away. Dean recently told the Boston Globe that as the campaign moves South he will start talking more about the role of Jesus in his life. This statement is idiotic on two levels. One that he's a straight talker who doesn't change his message to please his audience. If this isn't changing one' s message please tell me what it is? To be fair nearly all politicians do this to at least some degree. But Dean has based a good part of his campaign on the fact that he isn't the typical Washington insider and that he doesn't pander to the masses. So he should be held to higher standard.

The more ridiculous aspect of this statement is that he made it at all. What was he thinking??? If you are going to pander go ahead and do it but don't point it out for all to see. That's like the bank robber calling the police and telling them he's going to rob such and such bank at two p.m. Not a real smart move on his part. Discuss it in-house. Strategize about it, but for pete's sake don't announce it in the papers. One must assume this is another example of Dean's mouth outrunning his brain. I can't believe his campaign advisors knew that he was going to say that.

This again brings up a point that I have suggested in previous posts. Is this man qualified to be president? Have we now reached a critical mass of missstatements and contradictions such that the candidate is no longer viable? Certainly the majority of his supporters would say no. They love him for his contradictions. "That's just Dean being Dean " they say. But the rest of us out here-- good Democrats all, charter members of the ABB club -- are beginning to have serious doubts. When my dear wife looks at Dean on television making one of his belligerent or whiny statements and says "I don't think I can vote for this man," then we are all in big trouble.

TNR gives expression to hating Bush

Wow, I just read the Jonathan Chait article that Amy cited below. I encourage anybody who can't stand Bush to read it; though it doesn't really make me feel any better (it ends with "There. That feels better") it gives expression to precisely why this guy is such a fraud who needs to be turned out posthaste.

And, in keeping with the spirit of this blog, I am increasingly convinced that Wes Clark, not Howard Dean, is the one to do it.

Clarification to Previous Post

In my last post, I said "Insulting me isn't going to make me vote for you, Dr. Dean." Some readers took this to mean that I might not vote for Dean in the general election, even if he were the Democratic party nominee. This was emphatically not my meaning, although I could see how it might appear that way. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'll support, with money, effort, and my vote, whoever the Democratic nominee is.

Dean Threatens to Go Nader; Methinks his Supporters Should Protest

Many commentators like to argue that Howard Dean is doing something called 'Rebuilding the Democratic Base" and that this is a good and necessary thing.

How, then, do they explain his continued threats that his supporters will bail if he doesn't win the nomination?

Howard Dean said Sunday that the hundreds of thousands of people drawn to politics by his campaign may stay home if he doesn't win the Democratic presidential nomination, dooming the Democratic Party in the fall campaign against President Bush.

"If I don't win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they're going to go?" he said during a meeting with reporters. "I don't know where they're going to go. They're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician."

Now, I thought the party base, by definition, was supposed to turn out to vote for the party. What good is it if it can't be depended upon to do that?

Further, I dispute the idea that Dean's got some kind of lock on the 'party base'. What am I, chopped liver?

Also, could he quit with that "conventional Washington insider" crap? As I've said before, he's as much as calling non-Dean Dems 'squares', blindly supporting the 'Establishment'. Insulting me isn't going to make me vote for you, Dr. Dean. And, as my father has pointed out, if the non-Dean party base (we do exist!) can't get it up for him, how are we going to convince those all-important swing and non-voters to do so?

In any case, the candidate I support is not a 'conventional Washington insider', even if he is assumed to be the Clinton favorite.

And finally, maybe Dean should let his supporters speak for themselves. They might not be as eager for another four years of Bush as he seems to believe....

Clarification: It's not that I hate all Republicans, just President Bush

Lest my Republican readers (have I got any?) accuse me of vicious partisanship (and after I said I'd play nice and everything...) I'd like to clarify my previous post.

I really hate Bush. I hate him so much that he sometimes appears in my dreams, trying to make me like him. Last night in a dream he came over to our apartment and baked me chocolate-chip cookies so that I wouldn't hate him so much. These are great cookies, I thought. It's true what people say, you seem like a very charming guy. But I still hate your guts. Then I woke up.

For those who believe that my Bush hatred is a sign of irrationality, I refer you to Jonathan Chait's essay on the matter.

But, although Bush hatred can result in irrationality, it's not the product of irrationality. Indeed, for those not ideologically or personally committed to Bush's success, hatred for Bush is a logical response to the events of the last few years. It is not the slightest bit mystifying that liberals despise Bush. It would be mystifying if we did not.

But Amy, you protest, you did say you wanted to elevate political discourse in the country, didn't you? Why talk about your hatred?

Because it's there. And to pretend otherwise would be awfully duplicitous.

It's not that I hate all Republicans...

The Times has an editorial this morning about "The New Republicans". The premise of the article is not particularly new -- ever since the Republican Party allied itself with the Religious Right it has steadily lost philosophical coherence. Republicans used to be about hands-off government, fiscal conservatism, and anti-federalism.

This Republican administration, says The Times, is changing all that. These are not your father's Republicans. Says the Times:

This, it appears, is what compassionate conservatism really means. The conservative part is a stern and sometimes intrusive government to regulate the citizenry, but with a hands-off attitude toward business. The compassionate end involves some large federal programs combined with unending sympathy for the demands of special interests. If only it all added up.

I suppose the Times Editorial page was too timid to suggest this, but there is is a way in which it all adds up:

The current administration's domestic policies are incoherent because they do not, strictly speaking, have domestic policies at all. Their domestic policies are little more than a means to advance their political goals: winning, and winning big.

Bear with me here, I'm about to unearth some ancient (year-old) history. Remember John DiIulio, the squeaky-clean super-smart guy the administration tapped to run its faith-based initiatives program? Remember the flap last year about his on-the-record contributions to an Esquire article written about Karl Rove? Here's a man who wrote a detailed, seven-page, on-the-record memo blasting the Bush administration for having absolutely no interest in policy whatsoever.

Let's review some of the things he said:

[Circumstances] gave rise to what you might call Mayberry Machiavellis -- staff, senior and junior, who consistently talked and acted as if the height of political sophistication consisted in reducing every issue to its simplest, black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible. These folks have their predecessors in previous administrations (left and right, Democrat and Republican), but, in the Bush administration, they were particularly unfettered.

And

Translating good impulses into good policy proposals requires more than whatever somebody thinks up in the eleventh hour before a speech is to be delivered, or whatever symbolic politics plan -- "communities of character" and such -- gets generated by the communications, political strategy, and other political shops.

The letter is that of a disappointed but hardly vindictive man who was truly concerned about the Administration. DiIulio later issued an apology for having written the letter (I'm quoting the National Review's article on the subject, believe it or not..):

Shortly afterward, in the face of a deep-freeze reaction from the White House, DiIulio went into full retreat. "My criticisms were groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples," he said in a statement. "I sincerely apologize and I am deeply remorseful. I will not be offering any further comment, or speaking or writing further on any aspect of my limited and unrepresentative White House experience or any matters or persons related thereto. I regret any and all misimpressions. In this season of fellowship and forgiveness, I pray the same."

The National Review does not attempt to defend the White House against DiIulio's criticisms. It instead points out that "DiIulio's White House experience was quite a long time ago...and that's the problem with his confessions to Esquire."

The White House has since made efforts to paint itself as heavy-on-policy, thank-you-very-much. But I'm not buying.
From where I'm sitting, it still appears that the White House's main interest in domestic policy is using it to hand out favors to those who finance the re-election campaign and throw bones to the radical right's radical agenda.

If you can add it up some other way, please do let me know.