“Now I’m in Canada so I can say anything I like about the US of A! Ha!!!”

No, in Canada, by law, you are only allowed to say bad things about America. If you say good things, the Canadian “Human Rights Commissions” will put you on trial in a kangaroo court for hurting someone’s feelings.

Anyway, the New Yorker has a very good piece, which I read on the flight here, about the problems the Republicans, and McCain, are facing as the ‘long revolution’ of American conservatism is coming to a close.

Linked text

The gist of it is that it had its origins with Barry Goldwater’s loss in 1964, was refined by Richard Nixon around what they called ‘positive polarization’, had its peak with Ronald Reagan, got even more hard line with Newt Gingrich and the Republican-led congress in 1994, and has gone into decay and decadence under George W. Bush.

Arnie didn’t face primaries because of the recall election, and McCain faced a field which (perhaps in retrospect) was so comically weak that he progressed in a canter.

I think McCain’s biggest advantage over his primary opponents was the organisational experience gained during the 2000 campaign. It really showed against an opponent like Thompson whose positions were classically conservative and you’d think more appealing to the base. However Thompson’s “machine” was amateurish by comparison. Before they started, pundits would have told you McCain was comically weak.

Pay no mind to the “tenure track” bit, it was a failed joke that missed its target and dropped harmlessly into the ocean, hundreds of miles off course. (Then striking a hidden undersea coral reef, naturally, and unwittingly poisoning the habitat for millions of tiny starfish. Baby Gaia cries!)

Cheers, enjoy your stay.

Still think most of what I said was right, tho’.

And for what’s its worth, I don’t need to worry about tenure-track. I’m in the US because that part of my life is sorted.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21470

I certainly don’t think, and haven’t said, that American pople not voting for Barack Obama if they are not African-American is somehow a marker of their racism, nor would I assume that people who are African-American would automatically vote for Obama on racial grounds regardless of policies. In an earlier post on Noel Pearson’s views, I made the point that The Monthly was at fault in assuming that someone would be a expert on Obama’s campaign because they are an Aboriginal Australian. I also noted in that post that there is a significant black Republican/black conservative tradition in the U.S., of which Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice would be two of its most prominent members.

That said, if we have the first black candidate for U.S. President ever in 2008, they dynamics of that are unpredictable. It is unchartered territory, in a country where race questions suffuse its history and a stack of everyday issues, such as who lives where, job prospects, and exposure to the law. If Hillary Clinton were to be the Democrat nominee, gender would be a factor in voting patterns in ways that would also be hard to predict.

“I suppose you could even ride that horse to the tenure-track, at any number of ridiculous faculty departments.” Not sure what is meant here.

“white Americans’ increasing discomfort with this person is somehow an index of their racism”. I think you may be the one over-generalising or projecting here. Hillary Clinton will win Kentucky, and Barack Obama will win Oregon (he had 75,000 people at a campaign rally in Portland on Sunday). Both outcomes will largely reflect the views of “white Americans”. If Obama’s support base was confined to African-Americans, we wouldn’t be having this posting chat, as Hillary Clinton would long ago have been the Democrat nominee.

This is overly simplistic, and in a way which approaches a back-door smear. It is not a question of “electing the first African-American president in history.” It is a question of what sort of person that president might turn out to be. Plenty of whites would have voted for Colin Powell back in the 90s — y’know, those typical white people, with the guns and the Bibles and the bitterness and the bad dancing and the clapping on 1 and 3.

Barack Obama rose to prominence by creating the vivid early impression that he was not another old-fashioned “race man,” yet that is one of the things he increasingly appears to be, and it is not an attractive look in a candidate, for very good and well-founded reasons. He is also peddling some pretty strong-smelling snake oil, I mean medicine, that is not racially fixated. So the idea that white Americans’ increasing discomfort with this person is somehow an index of their racism is… well, I suppose you could even ride that horse to the tenure-track, at any number of ridiculous faculty departments.

“There is the interesting question of whether it would be easier for a black Republican to get elected than a black Democrat.”

There is also the still more interesting question of whether it would be easier for a black sane person to get elected, than a black crackpot. Well, given that our choices seem to be between a black crackpot, a white crackpot (McCain), and a recovering crackpot (Hillary), it oughta be an interesting race indeed. –Oops, I said that word, I better not do that. I mean, an interesting *contest*.

There is the interesting question of whether it would be easier for a black Republican to get elected than a black Democrat. A lot hinges on where Hillary Clinton’s voters go in the states that matter (Ohio, Nevada, California and Pennsylvania, not West Virginia and Kentucky).

The Democrats will definitely get the majority in Congress. It is right that they are as much a bunch of rorters as the Republican Congress, but voter blame the President, not the Congress, for the economic mess. Given that GW Bush had a Republican majority in both houses for six years, which Bill Clinton didn’t have, you’d have to say that they have a point.

The only Presidential candidates who would take on Congress in the name of fiscal conservatism are Bob Barr for the Libertarian Party (ex-Republican) and Ron Paul, whose campaign for the Republican nomination continues to plug on and get some votes in the Republican primaries. The fact that these candidates are around indicates real disgruntlement among conservatives with the Bush years.

I’ll take a piece of that. What odds you offering?

Some current odds are:

Barack Obama 1.75 @ [Centrebet]
John McCain 2.75 @ [Bet-at-home] [Centrebet]
Hilary Clinton 9.50 @ [Intertops]
Al Gore 41.00 @ [Intertops]

The Republicans seem to think more of the same will fix their standing when what is really needed is a major behavioral purge much like they promised, but only partially delivered during the Clinton years. Allowing line-item vetoes, eliminating riders on budget bills or other legislation, and generally getting rid of bogus earmarks would be a winner for either party. Sadly both parties are as bad as each other. Purging some of the more egregious legal offenders would also lift opinions, however they’ll gladly block FBI investigations today so that they themselves are protected tomorrow.

Another thing: the two parties are broad churches with little party discipline. The new southern democrats are viewed with utter hostility by their brethren on the party’s left, much like Joe Lieberman was until they cut off their senator to spite their party. Just because the brand changes doesn’t mean votes in the chamber will.

Incumbency counts against the Republicans at this congressional election. I expect we’ll see a McCain presidency with a Democrat congress. Neither side will be happy with their choices but the Republicans will be more prepared to hold their nose and vote.

I wonder if the discussion about the Republicans has relevance in Australia, where the Liberals are torn between ‘conservative’ and ‘centrist’ strands and strategies.

McCain is a mile ahead of Brendan Nelson as a politician, but the congressional Republican are a pretty mixed-up lot, who now feel that they over-invested in GW Bush Jr., now to their electoral cost. Some feel the same about the Liberals and Howard.

This strategy might work for McCain as the House Republicans in particular (and a number of Senators) are about as popular as … well… what’s a really unpopular thing? But the problem you don’t address, Terry, is that McCain’s campaign is broke and he has to tack right to raise money from “the base”.

I’m also thinking the position from which he’s attacked Obama so far puts him too close to Bush’s. It’s one thing to be a “maverick” Republican, but what happens when he’s running against a Democrat like Obama? Does he revert to traditional GOPspeak? In which case, does he forget the “reaching out” to Democrats and Independents?

It’s going to be a much more interesting general election campaign than primary season in many ways.