Monthly Archives: March 2012

Foreign Affairs Makes the Case for the Bull Moose

1 Reply

The Missing Middle in American Politics | Foreign Affairs.

In this superb review of Geoffrey Kabaservice’s new book Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party from Eisenhower to the Tea Party, Reihan Salam offers a thumbnail sketch of how and why the Republican Party has lurched so far to the right, and why this is a problem in America today.

Tracing the decline to the divisive 1964 Republican National Convention that nominated reactionary conservative Barry Goldwater as the GOP’s answer to Lyndon Johnson, Salam suggests that the only way the Republicans can ever hope to govern effectively is to hark back to the legacy of more moderate times.

Where I diverge with both Salam and Kabaservice is in their recycling of the old saw that moderates, by definition, lack ideology. I disagree, and for two reasons.

First, most moderates do have values and principles in which they believe passionately and use those to guide their actions. On the conservative side of the aisle, we can include George Romney, Dwight Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt, and arguably Ronald Reagan. It is impossible to argue that these men lacked the courage of their convictions, and none stood at the right wing of the GOP.

What moderates eschew is the kind ideological orthodoxy that disregards all other viewpoints, that eschews creative solutions, that denies the nature of the evolving American polity, and rejects the practical necessity of compromise in a political system that represents all Americans, not just Americans Like Me.

Second, in my experience the problem with political heterodoxy in America is not a lack of an ideology, but a failure to articulate it well and to place it in the context of policy. Hillary Clinton came closest in her 2008 campaign when she pledged to revive America’s middle class, an approach that sent the far left scurrying to the clarion of Barack Obama very early in the primary process. I would argue, though, that her failure toarticulatewhat that meant is what sank her in the campaign.

We suffer even more from this problem on among moderate and progressive conservatives. We do not articulate a coherent set of principles that would give shelter to the reluctant followers of either the Tea Party, the fundamentalist right, or the libertarian wing of the GOP, not to mention independents and Democrats who are tired of the doctrines of the left.

Kabaservice’s book is a look at how we lost our way, and I find myself unable to sleep as I absorb it. Our work now is not to find our way back, but to find our way forward toward a brand of conservatism that puts our principles to work finding a way forward for the entire country.

Related articles

The WSJ on James Q. Wilson

Leave a reply

The WSJ has an annoying tendency to cuddle up to the far right on its editorial page, so it was refreshing to read in the paper’s obituary of Dr. James Q. Wilson a contemplation of a brand of conservatism it has previously ignored or belittled.

Noting that Wilson was best known for the “broken windows” approach to law enforcement that has helped New York and other cities turn the tide against crime, the Journal’s editors postulate:

One reason Wilson’s ideas were successful—welfare reform is among his other policy contributions—is that they were grounded in data, hard facts and the evidence of experience. But his empiricism was special because it always respected the complexity and contingency that prevails in the real world. Few phrases in the English language are responsible for as much bad thinking as “studies show” or “research suggests.” If Wilson was guided by good evidence, not ideology, he also understood its limits.

via Review & Outlook: James Q. Wilson – WSJ.com.

That’s an important distinction: policy guided by good evidence, not ideology, and an understanding of the limits of empirical studies. His approach to policy leaves us a foundation on which to build a 21st century progressive conservatism.

Related articles

Defense: Fix or Kill

5 Replies
English: U.S. Air Force F-35 Lightning II join...

Image via Wikipedia

The Lockheed-Martin F-22, the U.S. Air Force’s primary air superiority fighter (read, shoots down airplanes, sometimes attacks ground targets) is on the verge of becoming the most expensive hangar queen in history because the Air Force cannot figure out why the $143 million plane’s oxygen system has killed one pilot and nearly asphyxiated a dozen more. Air Force Lt. General Herb Carlisle, in a commendable burst of candor, suggested that the aircraft’s oxygen system may need a complete redesign.

Meanwhile, Lockheed-Martin’s other major fighter aircraft, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is facing troubles simply getting into service with the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines. On Wednesday, CBS reported:

The best fighter pilots from the Air Force, Marines and Navy arrived in the Florida Panhandle last year to learn to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive, most advanced weapons program in U.S. history. They are still waiting.

Concerns about the stealth jets’ safety, cost overruns and questions about the entire program’s feasibility have delayed the training and left about 35 pilots mostly outside the cockpit. The most the pilots do with the nine F-35s at Eglin Air Force Base is occasionally taxi them and fire up the engines. Otherwise their training is limited to three F-35 flight simulators, classroom work and flights in older-model jets. Only a handful of test pilots get to fly the F-35s.

The day after that embarrassing report ran, the Air Force cleared the F-35 to fly on a very limited basis: clear weather, local area only, and for the first week only with experienced test pilots. For its part, the Navy is conducting its own, independent safety test program.

It gets worse. Japan, who has agreed to buy 42 F-35s for $122 million each, is now having second thoughts.

Japan may cancel orders for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jets if the price rises or deliveries are delayed, Defense Minister Naoki Tanaka said on Wednesday, casting doubt on Tokyo’s choice of next-generation combat aircraft.

They are not alone. Britain, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Italy, and Denmark are all rethinking their commitment to the F-35 program.

I am as proud as any American of the outstanding quality of the U.S. arsenal, but as I learned at a young age, not every weapons system performs as advertised, and some prove inadequate or even lethal to their operators. This is a problem as old as warfare. What separates victors from vanquished, however, is the speed with which one’s logistics establishment can identify problems with a weapons system, rectify them, or kill the program and replace it.

The United States has produced its share of dog weapons in the past. The problem now is that we have fewer suppliers, fewer choices, and more political capital being spent on each system, making them increasingly difficult to kill even when they need to be eliminated. With all of the stalwart defense of both the F-22 and F-35 I have heard, I have never heard a congressman or an administration official draw a line and say “if things aren’t fixed by this time and this date, we’re going to cancel this system and buy something else.”

The DoD needs to learn to say these things, and to give itself the wherewithal to say them. A military equipped with white elephants is a plaything, not a combat force.

Related articles

Both Limbaugh and the DCCC are Wrong

1 Reply

PETITION: Tell Republicans to Denounce Rush Limbaugh’s Cruel Tirade Against Women | DCCC.

As a conservative (albeit not a Republican since the GOP became the party of reaction), I think Rush Limbaugh’s comment about Sandra Fluke was inappropriate, over the top, and reflected badly upon himself and his intended audience.

In fairness, however, I think the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee‘s approach to Limbaugh is more emotional than strategic, and will in the long run hurt the DCCC’s cause.

As a one-time listener to Mr. Limbaugh, I know that he thrives on this kind of negative energy. Call for his censure and you only make him stronger, not only with his core audiences, but with those who are on the margins, including those who are uncomfortable with some of the other stances the DCCC is taking.  In short, this approach only polarizes the audience rather than building a larger tent for all Americans.

What the DCCC is not doing, but should be, is pointing out that Rush makes these statements either because of hubris or because he needs the attention. They should point out other commentators on the right side of the aisle that are worthy of respect, even if they don’t always agree with them. Not only does that serve to marginalize Rush and those who subscribe to his thinking, it makes the DCCC look like the reasonable party in the argument.

I suspect the leaders of the DCCC know this, so we have to ask why they are not taking this approach. I suspect that the DCCC and the Democrats generally are no more interested than the Tea Partistas in being reasonable or moderate. What they want to do is mobilize the money and passion of their core following, and could care less that the approach cannot but polarize the nation.

We need a different approach in our politics. We need to empower the voices of reason and intelligence rather than those of of the shrill, passionate extremes. I’m reaching out from the right. Anyone from the left?

Related articles

What Santorum Got Wrong About JFK's Religion Speech

Leave a reply

Reblogged from Swampland:

Writing in the new issue of TIME, Jon Meacham challenges Santorum's account of Kennedy's views on Church and State:

Santorum suggests that Kennedy offered a secular call to arms, banishing religion from American life in ways that believers like Santorum are still crusading to reverse. Kennedy's address, however, doesn't say what Santorum wishes it to have said. It called for an end to bigotry, not an end to faith in politics.

Read more… 315 more words

The dangers of taking a politician out of context in the age of the internet should be self-evident. Apparently, Mr. Santorum left that out of his calculus. Forget Kennedy's party and religious affiliations. His words should bring discomfort to both the religious right and the deicidal left: whether our founders were closet theocrats or enlightenment humanists who wore the mantle of faith for convenience and social acceptance, the framework they put into place was about tolerance. America is neither the last Christian nation nor the first Humanist one. It is a country where national identity operates outside the scope of such beliefs. Let it continue to be so.