Bill's Notes

National Review reminds the Republicans to get it together.

Republicans on Capitol Hill seem more interested in complaining about the Bush administration than in winning, or at least limiting their losses in, the midterm elections. The White House is arrogant; it is out of touch; it does not face the same electoral pressures we do: We have heard it all before, and there is truth in each complaint. But perhaps the recriminations can wait until after the elections?

Point taken.

Bush is the worst president in American history, says Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz in Rolling Stone.

Well, that's that then. Bush must be the worst president ever.

Bush entered the presidency in the midst of what was seen as an unstoppable economic boom, with a deeply united country, the wind at his back and the pathway cleared under his feet, and a deeply respectful opposition party willing to put their disappointment behind them and determined to help him succeed for the good of the country. Yes, it was a golden age of bipartisanship and cooperation until George W. Bush took over.

He deeply divided the country, talked the economy into a recession, alienated our allies, and sowed division, strife, anger and depression everywhere he went, alienating the deeply loyal Democrats despite their frequent overtures to him. He was given ever chance to listen to reason, but refused. Yep. That was it. Them's the facts.

Harry's back from Ireland. It's nice that he's back and safe and feeling better. In fact, he's not just feeling better, he's feeling much better ... check out how gives Republicans the what for in this screed.

- How to think like a Republican:

1. Deny that a problem exists.
2. If that fails, blame Clinton.
3. If it is obviously not possible to blame Clinton, blame Carter.
4. If it is not possible to even blame Carter, blame FDR and the New Deal.
5. If all else fails, bring up Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick.


- Will the "Right" finally admit they have been wrong all along, on everything from the economy to WMD's to foreign policy to the environment? Not very likely.

That deserves the following response:

How to think like a Democrat:
1. slappy, slappy, slappy, slappy
2. is it supposed to go all soft? oh i'll just think about Clinton.
3. aaaaah. [grabs toilet tissue.]
4. "shut up. I'll be out in a minute."

The Bush Administration is in deep, deep trouble. Peggy Noonan:

George W. Bush, on the other hand, does not tolerate dissent, argument, bitter internal battles. He is the decider. He decides, and the White House carries through. He is loyal to his aides, who carry out his wishes. (It is unclear whether this is a loyalty born of emotional connection or one born of calculation: Do it my way and the tong protects you.) His loyalty means they will most likely not be fired or leaked against, no matter what heat they take from the outside. And so his aides move forward with the sharpness and edge of those who know their livelihoods and status are secure. Bruce Bartlett has written of how, as a conservative economist, he was treated with courtesy by the Clinton White House, which occasionally sought out his views. But once he'd offered mild criticisms of the Bush White House he was shut out, and rudely, by Bush staffers. Why would they be like that? Because they believe that as a conservative, Mr. Bartlett owes his loyalty to the president. He thought his loyalty was to principles.

There are many stories like this, from many others. It leaves friends on the outside having to self-censor or accept designation as The Enemy. It leaves a distinguished former government official and prominent Republican saying, in conversation, "Those people aren't drinking the Kool-Aid, they're sucking it from a spigot!"

Yep. We got a problem. If this is true, and realistically, if Peggy Noonan is writing this, it is, then Dubya's second term is "in the shit," as the French say.

Bartlett's issue about loyalty to the principles is well-taken. Most of us conservatives consider what's happened in the past five years to be a betrayal of conservative principles. The runaway spending, the immigration, the feckless prosecution of the war (despite bellicose rhetoric).

Oh well. Things will no doubt swing back to the Dems now. Maybe they'll grab the opportunity. Or they could nominate a Jimmy Carter. Hey, it took the "greatest generation" six tries before they finally produced a decent president. (Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter all sucking up the place until Reagan came along.) The Baby Boomers took over starting in 1992. So we should have a decent president by 2012.

Regarding this: "Iran attack not ruled out."

MOSCOW - George W. Bush, the U.S President, refused yesterday to rule out the use of force against Iran — including a possible nuclear attack — if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions, while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, vowed to "cut off the hand" of any aggressor.

Mr. Bush, asked specifically whether the United States would consider a nuclear strike to prevent Iran from developing atomic weapons, said "all options are on the table," while stressing diplomacy remains his first choice.

What do you think will happen if the U.S. actually attacks Iran with tactical nuclear weapons?

My sense is with Iran we have a range of options, all of which are extremely risky, all have tremendous downsides, and all might not work. And that includes doing nothing. I don't envy the Administration.

Among the options:
1. Continue the present course of pursuing diplomacy and sanctions. Most likely result: Iran gets nuclear weapons, and we attempt deterrence. Iran sells nuclear weapons to client states and terrorists.

2. Massive appeasement of the Muslim world. Essentially, we give Iran and Osama Bin Laden exactly what they want: A full-scale withdrawal and disengagement from the Muslim world in every sense of the term. Yes, that means throwing Israel to the wolves. Most likely result: Israel does a nuclear first strike against the Muslim world, including Iran, and ethnically cleanses the Palestinians with conventional forces. The Serbians wipe out the Kosovars. Civil wars in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. A return to 9-11 style terrorism throughout the world.

3. U.S. unleashes a first strike, including nuclear weapons, against Iran. Most likely result: The nuclear sites are destroyed, but Iran unleashes terror against us by proxy, including on our home soil and Iraq. Diplomatic isolation of the U.S., turned on even by our closest allies, such as the U.K. Economic sanctions against the U.S. Riots in the streets and a red/blue divide that it makes the Vietnam era look like a picnic. Gas prices skyrocket, and our economy collapses under the weight of sanctions.

4. U.S. unleashes a strike against Iran, but doesn't use nuclear weapons. Most likely result: The nuke sites aren't destroyed. Massive Iranian terrorism. Diplomatic rebuke by our allies. And a heightening of the red/blue divide, but limited to sporadic violence.

5. Israel takes care of it for us. Most likely result: Israel continues its isolation. World breathes a sigh of relief.

I dunno. What do you think?

I don't see any good options.

UPDATE: More here.

Here's another terrific essay by Gerard.

Note: He accuses his fellow Baby Boomers of being dumb.

Regarding the Left's newfound confidence in "letting go of the right": I don't know if it's a good trend or a bad one. I tend to think it's probably good, even if it's counter-intuitive. When you change the actors, you change the dynamics.

Perhaps a robust internal debate completely divorced from pesky conservatives will force the Left to decide how to practically implement what it's in favor of. It's easy to be against the GOP. It's easy to demonize opponents (and yes, I sometimes do that, too). It's easy to come up with a list of positions that you're in favor of. But how do you practically apply it? The Left needs a higher-quality internal debate.

Other thoughts ...

One reason that I turned right (after years of being a liberal Democrat) was the conservatives were having a higher-quality discussion. Back in the 80s and 90s, they were sincerely trying to address issues such as the failures of the welfare state, the decline in public education, and threats to our national security. I worked in inner-city schools — let me tell you, more money isn't going to do a damn thing. And everywhere it's been tried, it doesn't work. Society in those areas has collapsed. You can't throw money at cultural rot.

Unlike Atrios and others on the Left, I don't tend to think of my opponents as stupid. I wouldn't go waltzing into Crooked Timber and say I'm the smartest boy in class. In fact, there are many smart and extremely effective debaters on the Left, and woe be to those who go in unprepared. This isn't to proclaim all Lefties smart; many are pig ignorant and have never seriously reflect on their positions.

Nor would I say Leftists are psychologically flawed. Some are sick, yes, but psychologically well-balanced, mature individuals can be liberal Democrats and even go pretty far Left.

So what's the problem with the Left?

I think to think of the problem as spiritual. I have never met a person who worships God in spirit and in truth (and you can sense the lightness and purity of spirit in being around such a person) who is pro-choice. Never. Not once. Not all pro-lifers radiate holiness, of course. In fact, a pro-life position can descend into hostile carnal viciousness pretty quickly. But my point remains the same: I have never met a pro-choice person or Leftist who was authentically holy. Never.

Same goes for wisdom. I never met a leftist who is wise. Not one. Ever. Many are intelligent, many are personable, many have extraordinary talent. But they are not wise as Leftists (often they apply wisdom in personal affairs contrary to their values; we call this "complexity"). Wisdom is open to all, regardless of education level. This is not to say all conservatives are wise: Far from it. But I've never heard a Leftist speak as a Leftist and thought, wow, that's really wise.

Which is why I've been letting go of the left. For years. Because I believe that you can weigh the evidence, test your observations, get lots of facts, and come to a reasonable, well-thought judgment that is entirely wrong. You hear lots of liberals say, "The facts are on our side." And sometimes they are, but is the wisdom? Rarely.

The wisdom of God is folly to the Greeks ... as Paul said. So when I hear the Leftists declare us "stupid" and "silly," I hear Scripture being fulfilled. They are Greeks, and Greeks are smart, and they can come to lots of reasonable conclusions, and it all makes sense except they don't realize they live in a world in which God was tortured to death. The spirit of the age has blinded them. And us. And me. Good thing there's a savior.

Now, a caveat: Remember I'm saying Leftists. You can be a holy, wise Democrat, yes. You will have to dissent on abortion, of course. That's a no-brainer. And on gay marriage. That's a no-brainer, too. In both cases, you can come to a well-reasoned conclusion to the opposite, but you will damage your soul and alienate yourself from God and open yourself to greater spiritual delusions.

And another caveat: There is more agreement in both political parties than we're often led to believe. We like tribalism, and GOP and Dem sometimes just breaks down like that. We're like this, they're like that, and screw 'em. But if you really talk across parties, we agree on all sorts of stuff. Democrats aren't solely tax-and-spend. And Reps aren't entire spend-and-borrow. Both sides have many people who embrace practicality and are looking for ways to make things work, and others who are too ideological for their own good. When you compare the best of this side with the worst of that side, you'll always determine your tribe is the best.

Let me see if I can explain this. The concept's still a little undeveloped in my mind. I want to talk about tone, and I know that once I bring it up people are going to say that's the way it always was, or that there are billions of counter-examples. But I think I'm onto something so bear with me and see if I can explain this.

Since the 2004 election the bloggie Left has changed its attitude. They seem more confident. Which is a new development, because the Left has always seemed at heart to be insecure, like children who insist they must be correct because what the adults were saying seemed "so mean," but somehow need us to validate their opinion.

In the past year, the left seems less insecure and more like adults: Yes, some of the less extreme lefties are still angry, others condescending, and still others contemptuous. But I see something else happening. Many have completely let go. Anger, condescension, contempt — these still involve dialogue, abusive as it is.

But some Lefties have gone beyond that. The Left is less interested in "correcting" the right and not even that interested in dismissing it. It's like they've dismissed the right and that's old news: It's like a divorce where one side just moves on and isn't even angry anymore, and where even the jokes at the other's expense lack the old bite because the feeling's just not there. Many on the Left, it seems, has stopped caring.

Here's a post by Atrios that's somewhere between contempt and "letting go."

Laughing All The Way to the Apocalypse

I know we're a bunch of angry fucking hippies, but I'm constantly amused by the fact that the Right doesn't seem to understand that we are laughing at them. We find them hilariously funny and they provide endless material for the wittier bloggers out there. One of the idiots showed up to Tbogg's place and imagined that his written-in-crayon manifesto was driving us crazy, and wanted to see if anyone wanted to seriously debate him. Who would want to spend time debating something coming from the minds of mental midgets?

They're such silly stupid people and they don't even have the brains enough to realize it.

Joke's on us in one respect, though. These are the people in charge.

-Atrios 11:18 AM

Mebbe it's just my reading, but, "silly stupid people and they don't even have the brains to realize it"?

Atrios is a better writer than that. If he cared, he'd have taken the time to craft a real insult. He's saying, "Look, I don't have the energy to write a real joke on this."

If I'm correct and this is a trend, I wonder what it means.

Just a couple of words I like.

Moonbats here.

Wingnuts here.

And of course IndustrialBlog is in the exact, reasonable, moderate middle. I didn't suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and understand it no more than the current Bush Derangement Syndrome.

For a great example of moonbattery, check out the story in the Washington Post on Rabid Moonbat blogger Maryscott O'Connor. Check out her "About Me" page. Nice picture. Then check out her bold positions on contemporary issues, in which she shows herself to be a doctrinaire moonbat. Not a single independent position. Her response to the Post article is here.

So a friend of mine joined the Democratic Party and seemed reticent to tell me. I thought, hey, it's not like he converted to Islam!

So I'm done. I have completed the process of swimming the Tiber. Saturday night during Easter Vigil, I was received into the Church and confirmed Roman Catholic. There was an extraordinary beauty ... I can't describe it. Just a beauty I've never experienced before.

On a lighter note, after sitting through about 50 masses in the past year in which I was not permitted to go to communion, it was a little odd to finally be permitted to go. Nice, but odd ... like, "Oh, right, I get to go."

It's all very exciting.

For you orthodox episcopalians who are thinking of swimming the Tiber, all I can say is this: It's wonderful.