Notes from the Weekend, Part I

I spent the weekend sequestered away from the world, including the world of politics. I had a vague notion that something of consequence was going on in South Carolina, but it interested me not at all. My fervor for presidential nominating politics has ebbed substantially the past week or so, most likely due to the knowledge that the Republicans will almost certainly nominate either John McCain, whose policies are bad almost across the board, or Mitt Romney, who is better on policy but inspires not in the least. My guy Rudy, alas, appears to be fading fast.

Hillary took quite a beating I see, and that pleases me to no end. But what did Obama win? Is he now ‘the black candidate’ rather than the inspirational uniter he passes himself off as? If that’s the case, he gained a few delegates in South Carolina, but he lost the nomination. If not, if the electorate has really had it with the Clintons and their low, dishonest ways, then maybe we’ll remember South Carolina as the final straw. There is a chance we may - it appears some Democrats are now shocked, shocked, that the Clinton’s may not be very nice people after all.

Gee, who knew?

Narrowing The Field

Now we're down to three. Fred is out and Huck is as good as out. Ron Paul is still in but he never had a chance. So the choice for Republicans is between McCain, Romney, or Giuliani. If you vote in Florida and want to stop McCain, is it a better bet to vote for Mitt or Rudy? I've already told you I think Rudy should be the guy - a win in Florida galvanizes his campaign and probably spurs him on to win the big states on Super Tuesday. He'd come out of Super Tuesday with momentum. Others think Mitt, who's been more competitive with McCain so far. The theory goes that a Mitt win in Florida would kill any chance Rudy has and would set Super Tuesday up as a contest between Romney and McCain. Conservatives would then have an unambiguous choice and would probably coalesce to spur Romney to victory.

Of course, if McCain wins Florida, it's probably over. I think he can win the general against either Hillary or Barack, but considering his stance on taxes, global warming, free speech, and the probability that he'd appoint activist judges (the type that would uphold McCain-Feingold), will it be worth it? I've said that thought Huckabee getting the nomination would signify the end of the Reagan coalition. I don't think that's the case with McCain. If elected it will probably be in spite of his positions. People, justifiably, simply like his story. He'll get elected because of his biography, and because of opposition to Hillary (if she's the Dems nominee). But a McCain who governed like I think he will - that could do tremendous harm to conservatism.

"either cowardice or collaboration..."

...is how Captain Ed characterizes the media's refusal to cover Judicial Watch's release of internal documents from Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Force. The release of these records should be a central issue of this campaign but the MSM has completely ignored the story. I expect someone close to the Obama campaign will eventually make reference to it. Perhaps that might force the media to take a closer look. Hillary keeps insisting her experience is the central reason why the Democrats should nominate her over Obama. Why isn't the MSM taking a closer look at how she has operated in the past when handed executive power?

Doing my best...

...to derail the McCain candidacy, I bring to your attention this column by Mark Levin at NRO. Mark points out that McCain's perceived competency on foreign policy and the war are not sufficient reasons to support a man who has "repeatedly betrayed" the conservative base. Read the whole thing.

Evangelical Resentment

I was about to retire for the morning and go do the Sunday crossword when I refreshed The Corner and saw this latest post from John O'Sullivan, a man I admire immensely. Reflecting on my theme that young evangelicals are more aligned with the left than with conservatives, he states:

...it seems to me to be a mistake for Cornerites and other conservatives to scorn Huckabee as a candidate whose appeal is limited to evangelicals (if indeed it is, which is far from certain.) The evangelical constituency is no longer firmly in the GOP camp. Many evangelicals, especially younger ones, are nervous that they have sold their faith for a mess of economic pottage—and not even got the pottage. Contempt for Huckabee will strengthen that burgeoning resentment.

While I agree with John O'Sullivan that there is 'burgeoning resentment' among evangelicals, I'm not sure its source is conservative scorn. Certainly, conservatives have been hard on Huckabee - I've been pretty hard on him myself. But pointing out the many intellectual and policy disagreements we have with Mike Huckabee, it seems to me, is pretty much a duty for conservative public commentators. The same has been done for McCain, Giuliani, and Romney, none of whom, to put it mildly, is a perfect conservative. Huckabee has veered from conservatism orthodoxy more often than the others so he's gotten hit harder. It's as simple as that. If evangelicals now bristle with resentment due to criticism of a candidate they support, it shows they have truly moved left, into the realm of identity politics.

But back to my original point. If there truly is 'burgeoning resentment' among evangelicals, where did it originate? Why, with Mike Huckabee himself. Huckabee cultivates this resentment every time he speaks to an audience of evangelicals. He pits his own candidacy against the field as an us vs. them proposal. He states that evangelicals have been taken for granted by the Republican party and that they are only accepted as part of the coalition so long as they simply show up every few years and vote the correct way. Now that one of their own has a possibility of winning, Huckabee implies that those opposed to his candidacy are opposed to it, not due to his record and policy positions, but because of his religious faith - a truly startling claim considering that a broad coalition of Republicans and conservatives has twice elected the current evangelical president. Throughout the campaign, Huckabee has slyly portrayed any criticism of him by the party faithful as anti-Christian bigotry.

A rift between evangelicals and the rest of the Republican coalition would probably have occurred eventually - young evangelicals had been moving left long before they heard of Mike Huckabee. But Huckabee has purposely hastened that rift, and made it more damaging to the future of the Republican party than it might otherwise have been.

What Now?

There are gads of newspaper columns and blogs talking about the significance of McCain's win in South Carolina yesterday. But it all pretty much comes down to this: John McCain must now be seen as the favorite to represent the Republicans in November. If he defeats Rudy in Florida, it will be pretty much over.

Ouch.

George Will's column this morning should be read by all Floridians as a kick-start to a party-wide anti-McCain campaign. That campaign should emphasize that everyone who does not want McCain to be the party nominee must now coalesce around a single candidate - Rudy Giuliani. Right now, if you're against McCain, it doesn't matter who you're for. It only matters that McCain be stopped in Florida. And Rudy is in the best position to stop him.

Liberal Fascism

I'm in the middle of Jonah Goldberg's fascinating and (to put it mildly) controversial new book Liberal Fascism. It's currently #1 on Amazon, which is good because it should be widely read and discussed. For more than half a century the left has not been shy about hurling the charge of 'fascist' at conservatives. It's been a given since the post-war era that Mussolini and Hitler were men of the right and the political systems they spawned reflected their right-wing extremism. My buddy Mike and I have argued for years that this is completely wrong, that Hitler had much more in common with the left than with conservatism, indeed that Hitler was the antithesis of a conservative. Jonah's book now turns history on its head and sets the record straight. Not only does he provide a compelling argument that modern day liberalism in America finds its roots in the early 20th century Progressive movement, he also shows how American Progressives were brothers to the European Fascists, from Mussolini's Italy to Hitler's National Socialists. They read the same books, they had the same influences, they espoused the same policies, they shared a mutual admiration. He even devotes an entire chapter to the argument that the first fascist moment of the 20th century did not occur in Mussolini's Italy but in America under Woodrow Wilson. A fairly shocking assertion, yes, but one he backs up with a truckload of facts, as he does with all of his assertions throughout the book. The left has been howling incoherently about the book since long before it was published but it seems to me that Jonah has now changed the playing field. If they want to continue making the case that Fascism is a product of the right, it is now up to the left to refute Jonah's charges with some compelling evidence of their own. So far, I haven't seen any.

A few notes. First, regarding the cover, I am of two minds. I think it accurately sums up what Fascism in the United States would look like, what it does look like. It comes dressed with a smile, a hug, and a promise that the government will make life better. So it's perfect in that sense. But at the same time it makes the book appear to be an instant political book, one of those silly things that an Ann Coulter or a Bill O'Reilly produces every few months and which eventually ends up on the $1.00 overstock table. And it's not that sort of book at all. It's a work of major historical importance, one that deserves to be read now and in the future as the definitive work on its subject. But the cover gives others ammunition to dismiss it as just another conservative bomb-throwing polemic.

Second, I've heard Jonah state in interviews that he became more of a libertarian as he wrote the book. I have been tending more in that direction myself and reading the book has likewise made me more so. The modern idea that all issues within the public square must be dealt with by government action is now pervasive. It has seeped even into conservative thought ("compassionate conservatism", "heroic conservatism", etc.) and I find it not only counter-productive, but dangerous - fascistic, if you will. Year by year, we tend more in the direction of a 'religion of the state,' as Jonah defines Fascism, one that:

assumes the organic unity of a body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure.

This tendency must be fought if we are to remain truly free people. Jonah's book should be read and discussed in this light by all thinking people.

Finally, Jonah makes a case against the argument "It can't happen here" by showing that it has already happened. To those who still need convincing that there are fascists among us, read this post from Captain Ed regarding Hillary Clinton's Health Care task force back in 1993. Read it with Jonah's quote above in mind, especially the "any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good," part. This sends a shiver up my spine. Hillary Clinton should be made to answer for it but probably won't. After all, does anyone expect the media which was ready to help her achieve her aims back in 1993 will act any differently today?