Mid-Monthly Review 1:3.5

Taos to Rummy: Don't hurry home!
Though there is undoubted novelty in the current wave of retired generals--now topped by the intervention of Colin Powell--denouncing the Iraq war's conduct from the planning side and pointing the finger at Rumsfeld, we here at Rumsfeld's base camp have a different perspective. As Powell said in his televised bit, we should judge Rumsfeld to be only a facet--a Suit, if you will (I'd say clubs)-- of the disastrous Iraq policy, with full weight also falling upon Dumb Dubya, Dick, and 'leeza.

Still, this is an Ace, no mere Bram or Tool of Bushite Misrule. Thus, the dilemma: do we invite Rumsfeld to cut and run back home, in other words to do the right thing (by our country), run with his tail not visible (whether chopped or between his legs would seem hardly important, given the magnitude of the victory) or challenge him to stand and fight and be crushed ever more thoroughly?

I follow the historic example of the Spartan mother who sent her son off to war, telling him to be brave: Come back with your shield, or on it. In this case, forget the shield. Rumsfeld must see the job through until he leaves in utter defeat, Bush's firing of him being the final refuge of the desperately lame leader of the administration. The reason for the hubbub now is that Bush is close to that extreme, and Rumsfeld that close to utter defeat. But not just yet, I think--that looks like the early-2007 ploy to try to pull things together enough at least to turn the page in Iraq. Just as I opposed making firing Rumsfeld a focus of the 2004 opposition--it would have made it seem (falsely) as if Bushism were turning a new leaf--I oppose doing it this year.

Hey, as long as Dubya says that Cheney's his VP, and Rummy's Defense, and 'leeza's State Security, that's his choice. He should have to live with them politically, whether in or out of office. Like Brownie's the man for Katrina.


Whosaiditism-- its current usage

There is a phenomenon of society that I am still, at my advanced age, having a great deal of trouble accepting. That is the notion that Who said something is more worthy of notice than What was said.

There are times when that aspect of reporting is appropriate: take the generals' statements about Rumsfeld and the critical Iraq decision process. The news is, in fact, not what the generals say but who is saying it. Such an event should be the exception, though the fact is that it is not rare at all.

What I will call whosaiditism and define as excessive attention to the authorship of a statement or idea and the thought process behind its timing, rather than its content, has two very pernicious notions behind it. One is that, rather than the content, the story is in the dramatic quality of the fact that So-and-so- is saying it. The corollary is that there is nothing new to be said; we just get the enjoyment of the permutations of seeing varying talking heads in the absurd postures of saying these things. This is exactly how much of political discourse is viewed these days (by me and by many others), and it's exactly what they used to say about modern Italy before the fascists.

But we are wrong to think that. It is simply a function of the quality of the political discourse, not that there is nothing new to be said. We are in times without precedent, trying to solve problems by traditional methods.

Reviews of '08 Proto-Candidates

Herewith, the first installments of a serial analyzing the political content of contenders for 2008 from both parties. These are all inspired by stump speeches I’ve seen them do on C-SPAN in recent months. (Posted 5/15)

Chuck Hagel

Hagel’s approach is neo-Bulworthian: Tell the truth, no varnish, take it or leave it. He defies the conventional wisdom that Americans are looking for an optimistic vision.

He also seems to want to defy the notion that one needs a base constituency of popular support to make a credible run at the Presidency. Where, exactly is his support going to come from? Moderate on social issues, frankly anti-Bushite in foreign policy, contrary to political-based expenditure allocation…there may be a hardcore residuum of “good-government liberal Republicans”, representing something like 1-10% of the primary vote (depending on the state), but where does that get him?

I think his approach would definitely appeal to a significant percentage of independents, and for that matter Democrats, but these are not the people Hagel will need to make a run at a Bushite/Republican establishment candidate (to be named later), nor even at a conservative with anti-Bushite credentials (McCain, Newt). Nor do I see much of an opportunity to parlay his run into a VP or major Cabinet role.

So, I just can’t see it happening for Chuck, whose positions are thoughtful, filled with integrity, and show a lot of common sense. Unless there is, in fact, some sort of neo-Bulworthian groundswell in the Republican party for someone who will level with us. So far, I don’t see any sign of that.

Bill Richardson

The speech I saw was in New Hampshire, on St. Patrick’s Day. He was out of his element on both levels—not much feel for the New Englanders, awkward jokes and story lines on the concept of a Hispanic at an Irish party pot-boiler. He was sweating. Later, he marched with the parade and took opportunities to reach out to the crowd, his response being general lack of recognition or interest. Based on what I saw, he shouldn't even make a run in New Hampshire, but I can't think of the last time that was a successful campaign strategy.

Since then, he’s gone more to ground: he’s does have a re-election campaign to run, though it’s heading for Hillary-like landslide percentages. Although, in theory, the current immigration debate should put him in the spotlight favorably—as an Hispanic governor of a state bordering Mexico, he has the most relevant knowledge and experience of anyone--I don’t think it’s done him any good at all, particularly given the populist thrust toward Nativism the debate is taking.

And that, I’m afraid, may be that for his Presidential hopes. He’s not going to have a crowd that feels like home, or that will have a significant Hispanic voting bloc, until his favorite-son race in New Mexico; OK, possibly some Southern states. Probably not Florida, though; we should not overlook the polylithic (like that? I just made it up—it means “not monolithic”) nature of Hispanic voters and the fact that most Hispanics in Florida are not of Mexican origin. I think he can win a few Hispanic delegates here and there, which will position him well in case the convention is deadlocked.

Don’t hold your breath. Apart from the fact that there is a heavy favorite who could have it wrapped up by April, there’s also the fact that the primary process, combined with laser-like media focus on the horse race (burning out all also-rans), seems effective in making an early decision. There’s enough of a track record to say that the probability that a convention will open without a presumptive nominee, in any presidential year, has become vanishingly small (5%?).

So, Richardson’s prospects would seem limited to either a Vice-Presidential nomination or a major Cabinet post for a centrist Democrat. Neither of these prospects seem improbable in the slightest: Richardson was definitely up for consideration on the Gore ticket, while his range of experience could project him comfortably to Homeland Security, EPA, a return trip to Energy, or even State. He has shown better diplomatic skills than any other politician I can think of. He doesn't need to play politics with delegates at the national convention to earn one of these jobs. No doubt, they would be more appealing than dealing with the rabble out here.

Newt Gingrich
I saw Newt last night on a speech before a group of Iowa Republicans given in late April. It was a basic party fundraiser and feel-good session; Iowa seems to have some interest for the national party in certain Congressional districts, and Newt was basically just scoring some endorsement chips.

Except that it was Iowa, the caucus state. That makes it a Presidential campaign speech.

I could definitely see some elements of amphibian strategizing going on in his fertile mind as he proposed bipartisan Open Forums (instead of mediatized “debates”) for Iowa pre-caucus candidate events. '...and let the best ideas win,' his proposal concludes. This is Newt’s strong point, his ideas, which he backs up well, like the academic that he is. This should have little appeal, really: Dubya is nothing if not a man of big ideas (in his case, fixed ones), and has proven to be surprisingly inept at administration. We don’t need that again. Gingrich's ideas sound fresh, but amount to the same old story.

Ideologically, though, I think Gingrich has found some politically promising turf (better than Hagel’s, anyway). He has no stake in this monstrous Administration I call the "Tyranny of Bushite Misrule" and freely criticizes its policies, its execution; and its exposed, flimsy philosophical undergarments, though none of it by name. He does it from a 21st-century conservative viewpoint which is more coherent and articulate than most conservatives’: open to New Age thinking, pro-business, pro-GWOT, pro-enforcement, Constitutional federalist.

Rather than anti-Bushite, Gingrich is thinking “post-Bushite, secular conservative”. Sounds good. Only problem is, John McCain is seeking the same high ground, and he’s both more well-known and more trusted than Newt. Still, if McCain slips, or can’t convince the Republican Right of his bona fides, there could be a major opening.


Common-sense Consumerism: Shampoos, Dandruff

I'm moved to rise in public denunciation of the fact that Head & Shoulders is now trying to market various colors and scents in its dandruff shampoos. There's a whole line of choices now, and a Head & Shoulders conditioner. Now, we all know this is standard Procter & Gamble technique: crank out product, then test it, see if it can be marketed, etc. But haven't we sort of lost the "purpose" of the whole Head & Shoulders exercise, namely, to get rid of the dandruff?

Longtime H&S customers know that question was purely rhetorical. The purpose is not to excise the dandruff vector; we know that isn't really feasible. The purpose is to ease the discomfort (not to mention "flaking, itching") we feel when our little dandruff boogers are unhappy. Because they let us know about it.

I admit that I have never looked at the stuff under a microscope (anybody want to post a comment who's had that experience?), but I'm going to hazard a few guesses about how this whole condition works.

(To be continued)