The Radical Centrist

More on the Arnold 28th Amendment from Patrick Ruffini

An important point, around which there seems to be a growing consensus, is that we need to stop selling it as an Arnold amendment. The alliteration alone makes it a compelling title, but it's likely to backfire, in exactly the way Ruffini describes, Folks outside of CA are not particularly moved to amend the US Constitution for one man. Patrick uses the title "28th Amendment" which will have to do until someone comes up with something more marketable, like the "Equality for Immigrants" Amendment (or words to that effect.)

This amendment could provide the country with a very healthy and long overdue chance to reflect on the patriotism and leadership shown by generations of immigrants. We could use a good discussion on this topic, especially as we contemplate ways to tighten our borders and increase security measures related to foreign nationals in the U.S.. Legitimate security initiatives ought not to become a drift into destructive nativism. This is a good time to celebrate the contribution of immigrant citizens.

Friedman gets an up-close look

Thomas Friedman's columns have a way of being either right-on or way off, but he's always a good read. He may a quick trip to Iraq recently to get a close-up look at the situation and has come back with a nice bit of op-ed writing. It's not a long article, so read it all. Note especially his observation on "the miracle of America".

I looked around at the assembled soldiers in the room. It was a Noah's Ark of Americans: African-Americans and whites, Hispanic Americans and Asians, and men and women I am sure of every faith. The fact that we can take for granted the trust among so many different ethnic groups, united by the idea of America - and that the biggest rivalry between our Army and Navy is a football game - is the miracle of America.

There is a mind-set, usually associated with a liberal, blue-state elite, that defines the country (and the world) in terms of competing interest groups based on race, economic status and ethnicity. This is an accurate picture of much of the world, throughout much of human history. There are other ways to unify people, rather than the common hatred of another race or religion. The "Noah's Ark of Americans" that Friedman observed were united by a common love and a common dream; even (dare I say it) common values.

Friedman contrast the current situation in Iraq. The Iraqis have both problems and opportunities in common that ought to unify them, if only for a while, but they have not discovered this as yet.

That miracle, and its importance, hits you in the face in Iraq when someone tells you that the "new" Iraqi police unit in a village near Falluja is staffed by one Iraqi tribe and the "new" National Guard unit is staffed by another tribe and they are constantly clashing.

Not long after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I heard Michael Gorbachev speak in San Fransisco. He said something that has stuck with me. It concerns the struggle with ethnic conflict. He said that there are many possible futures for the world, but that all those that include continues ethnic hatred and conflict end in disaster. There is simply no future down those roads. The only hope for the world is that the challenge of ethnic, racial and religious difference is met, and that humanity finds some way to unite across the ancient barriers. Odds are the solution, if we are able to find one, will come out of the ethnic melting pot of America

Two good posts from Chris Nolan

Over at Politics from Left to Right, Chris Nolan takes a look at the Amend For Arnold campaign. The most important angle here is the appeal to immigrant populations. Most folks think of immigrants in terms of lower-tier economic status and blue-collar or agriculture industries, but there is a large and increasingly influential group of educated immigrants in California (and elsewhere) and they could decide to get behind the big Austrian in Sacramento.

As Chris points out, the Republicans stand to benefit.

This campaign is a brilliant way to tell immigrants to California and other states that their party is the Republican Party; it's the party of American success. Given the split in the Hispanic vote, this is important. A number of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have offices or investors with offices within spitting distance of 3000 Sand Hill Road so the message is also aimed at highly educated, technically trained immigrants many of whom are just getting into the swing of things, politically.

That Arnold himself has decided to start "writing" a column for the state's ethnic newspapers only underscores how determined Republicans are to take so-called ethnic voters away from Democrats. Arnold is going to make sure California become a Republican state. And he's going to do it one naturalized citizen at a time.

Also at Chris's blog is a report on the increasing power of email campaigns and blog pressure as a lobbying force. The ability to move stories very rapidly makes the "new media" influential on political issues.

Speaking as someone who has worked in the rough and tumble of New York tabloids, this is great stuff. It's exactly what the on-line web journalism is meant to do: Challenge the other guy to go one better. Keeping the competition honest.

A couple of links to amuse you while I'm fullfilling my civic duty

I'm serving on a jury this week (in the famous "Redwood City Courthouse". Boy am I glad I'm not on that jury!) so blogging will be light. In my evening romp around the web I found a couple of items worth passing on.

In addition to Patrick Ruffini's new blog, we can celebrate the return of Peggy Noonan to the WSJ Opinion pages. I read a lot of opinion pieces each day. I bookmark some of my favorites but rarely have printed a column or essay to hard-copy, but I have multiple Noonan columns posted on the corkboard in my office. She is not only a wonderful writer but more a wonderful observer. She has a way of seeing what other pundits are missing or saying the thing no one else will utter. This week's column is a case in point. Peggy want;s everyone to quiet down. Bless her for saying it. We've had the political burner on high flame for months now. It's very much time to cool down and quiet down. Just think, a little quiet will allow us to hear those things the political shouting has drowned out. There's a country full of stuff happening out there. As Peggy says, "Ssssshhhhhhhh."

Here's a prize quote:

The criticism of Ms. Rice has been fascinating. Her critics need to sit down and have a Coke, as Bob Dole said. A friend said to me yesterday, "She is boring." I thought, really? You can't be boring enough; we've had quite enough excitement.

Another person said, "She's not very feminine." My first thought was: Neither was Colin.

I have to agree. Colin Powell is many things, but "very feminine" is not one of them.

If continued talk about the 2004 campaign bores you, there's always the early talk about 2008. Assuming that Arnold won't have the constitutional barriers out of the way by then, Rudy Giuliani is another star player the Republicans should be looking at. (the early guesswork seems to favor candidates who need only their first names to be recognized; Hillary, Rudi, Condi and Arnold. We'd include Jeb if he could run without revealing his last name.) Micheal Trotten likes Rudi too, and has even offered to switch party affiliation to support him. Check out his post if only to enjoy the photo of Rudi in drag. There are very few politicians who could do something this wacky and get away with it. Rudi and Arnold can but I can't think of others. Perhaps this is a response to the sort of comment Peg Noonan quoted. If Condi's not feminine enough for you, we've got Rudi!

And, as usual the Grand Prize comment comes from James Lileks:

"For God’s sake, if Patton were alive today he’d be slapping civilians."

I need to be at the courthouse at 9am tomorrow, so I'll sign off for the night. Your assignment for tomorrow, slap a few civilians and tell 'em to "Ssssshhhhhhhh."

A little less "Arnold" for the amendment campaign, please

Like many Californians I was interested by the appearance of an organized group leading the effort to amend the constitution to allow naturalized citizens to be President. There's no secret that the motivation behind the campaign is to open the door for Arnold, and he would certainly have my support, but I'm not sure that the rest of the country feels the same way. Patrick Ruffini, another supporter of the amendment idea, offers some excellent suggestions, among them:

De-emphasize Arnold as much as possible, and find another plausible, prominent Democrat beneficiary, most likely Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

Make it about the Latino vote. Portray the vote as a referendum on opportunity for Latinos and all legal immigrants.

The folks behind the current effort are perhaps a bit over-eager about Arnold. They need to listen to this sort of advice and make this a bi-partisan effort to open the Presidency to immigrants.

Arnold vs. Obama? That would be an entertaining campaign!

Steve Waldman is trying to spoil all the fun.

In this column the BeliefNet site, Steve Waldman throws a little cold water on what has become the new favorite sport for the American political classes, demonizing the opponent. It seems that liberals really do have some morals and conservatives really d have some brains. Well that's no fun! Actually it's a fine column that makes some points we need to be discussing. Both sides have had a chance to blow off some steam and practice some over-the-top abuse of the other, but its all getting a bit old.

Waldman's points are all quite true in general but a little overly simplistic. The first problem is that he's making broad generalizations and just like the wild claims he's contradicting, all generalizations are at least a bit wrong. We'll forgive him that, however. The nature of a short article requires that he oversimplify the situation, and he's certainly correct about the major portion of liberals or conservatives.

But that is also my one complaint. He is talking about the large group of people in the center of the political bell-curve. Most liberals are just a bit to the left of center, and most conservatives just a bit to the right. As Waldman has pointed out, the two "groups" (to the extent that they are really distinct groups) are not all that different. Unfortunately there are people out on the tails of the distribution (back to the bell curve) who do fit some of the stereotypes, and they get a lot of press. Most liberals believe in morals, but some don't, or at least believe in a sort of morality that is hard to recognize. Most conservatives don't want to force religious views on others, but a few very much do. There will always be folks out on the fringes who are trying to hog the microphone. I don't worry about that. I worry when I see those sorts of folks being handed the microphone, and getting warm applause. Religious Democrats need to toss a bucket of cold water over some of the more anti-religious party spokespeople, just as Republicans who value tolerance and freedom should put a cork in the mouths of those who invoke God's wrath on opposing voters. Waldman's essay draws attention back to average Democrat and Republican, where it ought to be. If we can get the leadership of both parties to do the same, we might be able to accomplish something together.

A look at the election shift on a state level.

The NYTimes offers a look at the historical shift in this election in West Virginia. Some of the most interesting shifts this year are in those "border states" between red and blue America.

A couple of quotes worth highlighting...

"We need to step back and look hard at our party," Mr. Casey (Dem. Party Chairman) wrote. "The Republican Party has become a force and it is a unified force."

"This election will make it respectable to be a Republican," said Andy Gallagher, Justice McGraw's campaign manager.

One is tempted to make some sort of quip about the change in the Republican image from Blue-Blood to Red-Neck, but I don't want to traffic in stereotypes (wink). This is a development that will confound the historians a few generations from now. A group that is violently reviled by the leading elites is growing in numbers and respectability.

Bigotry against "red-staters"

(Before getting into the substance of this post. I just want to comment that "Red-State" and "Blue-State" have now become recognized handles for opposing political philosophies. On the one hand, this is a good thing, as the old labels were becoming a bit stale and inaccurate. On the other hand, I live in a very blue state and am not ready to be cast -in with Jane Smiley and the other voices for the blue parts of the map.)

In my weekend reading I came across this essay by Bruce Thornton writing on Victor David Hansen's weblog, Private Papers. He's convinced that recent public tirades from disappointed Kerry supporters against the "ignorance" of red-state voters will drive people towards the Republicans, using Jane Smiley's infamous column in Slate as an example. I'm inclined to agree, but I want to focus on the way he characterizes this writing as "ignorant prejudice" and "bigotry". One could point out that these are strong words similar to those used by Smiley. They are indeed, but there is an important difference. Smiley is attacking and labeling an entire section of the country, over 60 million voters, whereas Thornton is naming as bigoted a specific written opinion. The latter is a valid criticism. The former is invalid, inaccurate and, as Thornton points out, likely to backfire.

The intellectual elites in the coastal cities are angry. They have pressed their views on the country and been ignored by a significant portion. They have been easy to ignore as their ideas are based on such transparently inaccurate and prejudiced thinking.

Central to Smiley's bigotry is her irrational hatred of religion, which she rails against on the basis of unexamined assumptions and debased Enlightenment clichés: "Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you-if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell." Anyone remotely familiar with modern Christianity, even the so-called fundamentalist variety, knows that this is a simplistic caricature at least as old as Elmer Gantry and Inherit the Wind. So too with Smiley's assertion that faith requires that "you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it." So much for Augustine, Boethius, Dante, Aquinas, Dostoevsky, Pope John Paul II, C.S. Lewis, Michael Novak, and any number of Christian intellectuals compared to whose complex thinking Smiley's is a bumper sticker.

Thornton also attacks the prevalent assumptions about capitalism and business:

If the Tweedledum of liberal prejudice is bigotry against religion, the Tweedledee is bigotry against "capitalism." The hoary clichés about moustache-twirling "robber barons" cackling as they tie the proletariat to the railroad tracks of history are ultimately Marxist in origin, and rest on irrational myth rather than concrete evidence.

This is pretty standard stuff in academic circles, where is goes unchallenged all too often. Growth of the small business sector puts more people directly into the capitalist world, destroying these generalizations. In the meantime, expect to hear more of the same.

We need to take Thornton's example and begin naming this talk for what it is, bigoted hate speech. My vote this month was motivated more by my fear of this mindset than any love of George Bush's policies. When marginalized groups spout ignorant prejudice we are dismayed but not frightened. That happens in an open society. But such ugly nonsense from supposedly leading thinkers, in prominent journals, is a much more serious concern. These angry Democrats need to be rejected by the more rational and tolerant members of both parties. The same can be said of the more extreme elements of the right, but they have managed to stay out of the news as late, and have less access to major media outlets. The center should embrace this important stabilizing role. If the Democrats don't change this tune quickly they will deserve the resulting accelerating abandonment of their party.

Cartoon Characterizations of the "Red States"

Mrs. Greyhawk has a word to add on the Mudville Gazette, concerning how the "red staters" have been portrayed in the media and on certain blogs. She links to a conversation at VodkaPundit about the true worldliness of red-state folks, especially those connected to the media. Both make a good point about the international experience of military families, who actually live abroad rather than just visit a few landmarks, and who get to know the people abroad in a more personal way. She also points out that military families live in as race-blind and religion blind an environment as can be found in America, if not the world.

What you usually end up with on or near military installations everywhere is a hodgepodge of nationalities, individuals with a vast collective knowledge of the earth and its peoples and cultures, (reality, not theory) and classrooms full of children for whom "race" is an abstract and who likely have more real world experience than their teachers.

These are excellent points and illustrate a larger point well, most of the "common knowledge" characterizations of the "red-states" and the people that live, there are very distorted. There are many immigrants in those states, people from Asia, Central America, and elsewhere who have found welcoming communities in the heartland. Not everyone outside the U.S. is scornful of "moral values" and some have found that their own values are better respected in those middle-America counties.

Agriculture is a big business these days and very international. People in rural counties may dress in overalls but hey are likely to be receiving faxes from international customers and brokers while they're out on the farm. In my experience, some of the most racially and culturally diverse companies are in the agriculture business. I worked at Dole Foods from some years, and native born Americans were a distinct minority.

Most characterizations of the Christian community coming from the blue-state intelligencia are terribly uninformed and inaccurate, really cartoon images of Christians, little resembling reality. Church-goers are discussion the difficulties and suffering throughout the developing world every Sunday, and they are doing a lot more than discussing, too. Most churches are raising funds to help these people and more than a few are sending people into these areas to bring relief and comfort. These people return with stories to tell, but those stories are not being heard among the blue-state elites.

Finally, believe it or not there are a lot of Kerry supporters in those red states. Diversity of opinion is as much a part of the heartland as it is on the coasts. One could argue that there is more out there. I would much rather be wearing a Kerry button in the south than a Bush button in New York or San Fransisco. To their benefit, folks in the southern and middle parts of the country tend to be elites and experts in general. Perhaps that is why the intellectual elites believe red-staters are "dumb". They will sit and listen to you attentively, they don't shout back at you, but then they don't agree with you! That they may have understood what was said and quietly disagreed is not something these speakers have considered. I'm glad to see some of the red-state bloggers and mil-bloggers attacking these facile misrepresentations of the majority of our country.

Chris Nolan has more on her "progressive-libertarian" idea

Chris has responded to the response to her earlier post. Apparently I wasn't the only one to experience an allergic reaction to the term "progressive-libertarian". She explains that she means to use both terms in their traditional way, shorn of the unfortunate code-meanings newly attached. I can buy that. I'm a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt, who wore the "progressive" label with pride, and a low-level libertarian inclination is a common link for most centrists. I'm wary, however, of trying to swim against the tide when a term catches on as a code word or buzzword with very specific connotations. But these are good words that ought to be rescued and re-introduced into the conversation, so let's try the progressive-libertarian label for a while.

I have no disagreement at all with the concept she is describing. I live a few miles down the peninsula from Chris and this generally unnamed and unrecognized "movement" (really a trend, not yet sufficiently self-conscious to be a movement) is very strong here. In Silicon Valley it can be very difficult to tell the Democrats and the Republicans apart. Here's a quote from Chris:

The movement isn't without its faults. Progressive libertarians don't think big in the political sense because, fundamentally, they have contempt for politics. They see a problem – education is big here in California – they come up with a solution. They move on. They emphasize the ROI – return on investment – but in many cases the work that government does has little, if any return. They haven't really come up with a solution for the increasing economic disparity in this country. Their attitudes toward the poor, the ill, the disenfranchised are often dismissive, sometimes cruel. In short, no these are not classic Liberals although many are loathe to say so. And yes, the could well be Rockefeller Republicans but most of 'em don't know what that means. They are what's new in politics, however. And they're growing before our very eyes.

Well, I'm old enough and East-Coast enough to know exactly what "Rockefeller Republicans" means. I prefer to look back to T.R. for inspiration, but both were a bit "old money" for my taste. The movement in this area seems more tied to an entrepreneurial spirit. Perhaps that energy, so ready to break out and embrace the future, can be harnessed to remake the political landscape the same way it is remaking the economic world.