American Republicans & Conservatives Honor Roll

 

Edmund Burke (1729-1797): the father of conservatism in the post-French Revolution world

I've publicly admitted on various occasions that I was a teenage Republican, although I must sheepishly admit that this condition persisted well past my teen years. (However, I've never voted for the Republican nominee for president; i.e., no Nixon or later nominees). But this bout of Republicanism was something that I was born into; my parents were committed, active members of the Republican Party. By the time I was 16 years old, I'd attended two Republican national conventions (San Francisco and Miami) and had met numerous Republican officials and candidates and attended hours of meetings. I also hasten to add for the benefit of any younger readers, that the present-day manifestation of the Republican Party is a far cry from the party of my parents and my youth. The last Republican nominee for public office that I can remember voting for was Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA), which continued even after I affiliated myself with the Democratic Party back in the early 1980s.  Leach was a "moderate" Republican and received a lot of crossover votes until 2006 when the Democrats finally nominated a well-qualified candidate against him (Dave Loebsack), and it was clear that Leach wasn't appreciated by his own party in Congress. I thought of my vote for Loebsak as an act of mercy toward Leech as well as a vote in favor of Loebsack. (N.B. Leach later endorsed Obama for president against McCain, and he penned an editorial in 2021 in favor of the impeachment of Trump based on Trump's role in the attack on the Capital.)  And as mentioned, I've been registered as a Democrat since the early 1980s. That way I can honestly and accurately say that "I'm not a member of any organized political party--I'm a Democrat" (hat-tip to Will Rogers for coining that ditty). 

But while I was raised in the Republican Party, I was born with a cautious, conservative temperament. With age, however, I received a liberal (arts) education; I've lived through a wide-ranging set of experiences that have fostered a pragmatic frame of mind toward action; and I've cultivated a penchant for radical (as in "going to the root of things") perspective. But for all these additions, I am--at least in some ways--still a conservative at heart. 

So what does it mean to be a "conservative" at heart? From my perspective, it implies several things. It means preserving (conserving) what one has that is worth preserving. At the present moment, that would certainly entail democracy and the rule of law. This is not to suggest that either our democracy or our legal system are without flaws. Hardly. Indeed, as to democracy, I'm with Churchill: it's the worst form of political rule except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. And our legal system is too much governed by the Wizard of Id's golden rule: "them's that's got the gold make the rules," among other foibles. But, to continue my string of cliches and well-traveled quotes, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So, having once been the owner of an old house, I'm all in favor of making repairs to maintain the (mostly) solid structure that we've come to know and value. So with our form of government; better imperfect democracy than authoritarianism and despotism. So, too, with the rule of law; our laws and judicial system are imperfect but far better than most and if laws and judicial system are trashed, we will suffer very ugly consequences. And, I might add, in what is admittedly a bit of a balancing act, I exercise my cautious, conservative impulses in concert with my liberal, pragmatic, and radical dispositions. Thus, of late I've taken to describing myself as a "Burkean radical" or, conversely, a "radical Burkean." An oxymoron? Perhaps, but I like to think of such a designation as a fruitful paradox; a form of "both/and" and not "either/or." Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I contain multitudes (hat-tip to the poet of American democracy, Walt Whitman). 

Thus, my conservative self wants slow, careful change. No storming the barricades. Instead, going to the meetings: talk, persuade, bargain, wheedle, and cajole to realize pragmatic results that benefit the society as a whole and that recognize the interests of all of those legitimately at the table. And yet--we need radical change. Or, rather, radical change is coming, it's only a matter of direction. Climate change and other instances of our "polycrisis" (hat-tip to Adam Tooze for this term) will require many and basic radical changes that will go to the root of our culture. The question won't be whether radical changes occur, but whether we will deliberately choose the changes we should desire (my conservative option) or whether radical changes will be foisted upon us by our failure to act soon enough to avoid the most radical and most disturbing changes. Nature, in some ways, is my model: it conserves life and it also allows--indeed, sometimes requires--radical changes in life. I want to conserve the Nature and the (best of ) the culture and society that we still have and not suffer a wholesale transformation into something utterly alien. 

So how does one make my honor roll of conservatives and Republicans? Simple: one speaks out for democracy and the rule of law; one speaks out in favor of dialectical and not eristic decision-making; in favor of speech and not force. One speaks out against Trump and Trumpism (the most un-conservative force ever to have held the presidency and Congress). One does not endorse Orban (Hungary) (as Trump just did), Boloansaro (Brazil), Duterte (Philippines), Erdogan (Turkey), or Putin (Russia), and other such faux-democrats, demagogues, and despots. “A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!” said the father of post-WWII American conservatism, William F. Buckley. But in our time the tides of history have largely shifted away from liberalism toward illiberalism; away from deliberation and toward force; and away from democracy and toward authoritarianism. The inherent flaw in conservatism is that it tends to leave the powerful in power; it defaults too easily to the status quo. But the strength of conservatism is that it puts principles before power; it seeks to protect the bedrock upon which societies can flourish. 

As we approach the first anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, and now one year past the Trump presidency, these individuals, all of whom (I believe) either self-identify as "conservative" or "Republican" (or both), have passed the test. Note that precious, precious few are elected officials (sad indeed). Note that I undoubtedly have some serious policy disagreements with them, but all have spoken out against the corruptions (pecuniary, personal, and institutional) of Trump and his ilk, which includes most current Republican elected officials. That these individuals chose democracy and the rule of law over personal gain and personal friendships speaks loudly indeed. I commend them to you. 

1. David Brooks, NYT & The Atlantic.
2. David Frum, The Atlantic & former W. Bush speechwriter. 
3. Anne Applebaum, The Atlantic & former WaPo columnist & historian of  the USSR & Eastern Europe
4. Max Boot, WaPo columnist, and historian
5. Bill Kristol, formerly of The Weekly Standard, The Bulwark founder & editor, and former chief-of-staff to Vice-President Quayle
6. Tom Nichols, a contributor to The Atlantic & former Naval War College prof
7. Andrew Sullivan, podcaster, blogger, & author
8. Charlie Sykes, podcaster and The Bulwark co-founder & contributor
9. George Conway, lawyer, and Republican official, & a Lincoln Project co-founder
10. Steve Schmidt, McCain campaign strategist & Republican political operative
11. Robert Kagan, foreign policy expert
12. Rick Wilson, former Republican political strategist & Lincoln Project co-founder
13. John Weaver, political strategist for McCain campaigns & Lincoln Project co-founder
14. Mona Charen, writer, podcaster, former Reagan administration official, and The Bulwark policy editor
15. Ross Douthat, NYT columnist 
16. David French, commentator, formerly with National Review, & now with The Dispatch
17. Jennifer Rubin, WaPo columnist
18. George Will, WaPo columnist
19. Christine Todd Whitman, former Republican gov NJ & former EPA director in W. Bush administration
20. Evan McMullin, former CIA operative, former House Republican caucus policy director, & now an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Utah
21. Brett Stephens, NYT columnist
22. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-WY and vice-chair the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack
23. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-IL was one of ten Republicans to vote in favor of Trump's second impeachment

Also, those associated with The Bulwark and The Lincoln Project whom I haven't mentioned above. 

I invite any nominations to the list or any criticisms of any selection. 

As we go into 2022 and toward 2024, crucial years for the future of democracy and the rule of law in the U.S., we need these folks and a whole lot more like them. 2020 was a success overall, but a large, strong, and perhaps growing cancer continues to infect the American polity, and we need courageous and patriotic Americans to do their part to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution and the democratic and legal principles that have grown from it. We should not want the failure of the American experiment to fall upon our heads. 

N.B. The list is based on my random recall of whom I recognized and not necessarily in order of any particular merit.

Heather Cox Richardson on the Eve of the Senate Trial: The Non-trial Trial

From @HeatherCoxRichardson:

“For his part, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is doing everything he can to make sure the public sees as little of the proceedings as possible. As conservative pundit David Frum put it: “No witnesses… No evidence… No time… No cameras.” As of Sunday night there had been not even “the most basic negotiation or exchange of information,” according to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), and this evening, less than 24 hours before the trial is supposed to start, McConnell revealed a four-page resolution establishing trial rules.

The rules leave open the possibility of simply ending the case immediately, which is unlikely to happen. They limit the arguments from each side to 24 hours over the course of two days each. This would mean a deluge of information too much for most of us to take in, even if significant argument didn’t happen in the middle of the night… as of course it would. The rules give the Senate the option of refusing to hear new evidence or testimony, and on the chance that the Senate does vote for testimony, the rules are arranged to prevent former National Security Advisor John Bolton—or anyone else-- to testify in public.”

After a relatively quiet holiday weekend, the frenzy before tomorrow’s Senate impeachment trial has begun. It is important to remember that Trump's people have produced no evidence that the president did not, in fact, do the things of which he has been charged. His supporters are not even trying t...

HEATHERCOXRICHARDSON.SUBSTACK.COM

January 20, 2020 - Letters from an American

After a relatively quiet holiday weekend, the frenzy before tomorrow’s Senate impeachment trial has begun. It is important to remember that Trump's people have produced no evidence that the president did not, in fact, do the things of which he has been charged. His supporters are not even trying t...

David Frum on the Perils & Possibilities of Impeachment: Lesson 1 on the Trump Impeachment

Okay, it's time to start paying attention to impeachment (akin to a criminal indictment). This article by former Bush speechwriter David Frum is an excellent place to start. It briefly outlines the perils of impeachment (if you shoot at a king, you'd better not miss). And as for the Dems, they need to keep talking about the issues that people care about and that this administration is screwing-up: health care, climate change, tariffs that hurt American enterprises (e.g,. farmers), and so on (and believe me, I could go on at length). Anyway, start here, and I"ll try to keep pace.

P.S. Am I excited about impeachment? Do I cherish the ideas of President Mike Pence? Good grief! We must ultimately act via an election and reject the politics of division.

About this website

THEATLANTIC.COM

A Realist’s Guide to Impeachment

Trump should face the consequences of his misdeeds, but the road ahead is perilous.

Is It Okay to Hate Derp?

A pair of columns in the NYT yesterday provides a jumping off point for a discussion of political civility and argument. I first read this piece by Arthur Brooks entitled “The Thrill of Political Hating” that decries political hatred. Brooks intends to make his argument even-handed, implying that both those on the right and on the left can get into political hating. This is true, but only in a limited sense. In the U.S. today, to claim an equal weight of political invective and hatred between right and left doesn’t match reality. At one time, perhaps, in the late 19^th century and the early 20^th century, but today, with few exceptions, vitriol on the left is largely missing. In fact, much of popular conservatism, I’m talking ordinary Joe and Jane Doe (well, I’d wager John much more than Jane) who might post anonymously and those who feed upon their fears (Fox “News”) and its offspring, hatred. (I’m not referring to most intellectual conservatives, like Arthur or David Brooks, Ross Douthat, David Frum, etc.) The most frightful and disturbing phenomena in much of popular politics today is the fear-driven, angry aspect of so much of popular conservatism. (I think that the phenomenon is much better described as “reactionary” than “conservative”, but I’ll defer to the popular nomenclature for the moment.) I understand those who favor lower-taxes (always), less government (always), and favor the use of violence as a first resort. I don’t agree with these lock-step approaches to running a government, but I understand self-interest. But the frightening and difficult thing about much of popular conservatism stems from its irrational nature, the “what’s the matter with Kansas?” phenomenon. We’re talking about mostly white, blue-collar, marginally employed workers. Their understandable frustration and anger sends them careening into the arms of those who will most likely harm their collective interests. The Koch Brothers and the Koch Brother’s U.S. Congress® aren’t the friends of Americans on the economic margins. 

While I agree that hate is not the answer, what do we do with those who cynically exploit those driven by fear? To borrow a stock but relevant example, should we have hated a Hitler? What of those who cynically exploit the less sophisticated to augment their own power and desires? At some point, the messenger is the message. I’m not talking about garden-variety ambition that is the mark of any high-ranking politician. (I was recently shocked that someone like Russ Roberts could object to Hillary Clinton because of her ambition? Really? And what about every person who’s ever held the office of president or wanted to do so?) I’m talking about those for whom all moorings to the public good as an independent goal have loosened, and only private gain, power, and glory drive the office-holder. 

Let me hasten to point out that this essay is not entitled “In Defense of Hatred”. In fact, I yearn for the (sort of) good ol’ days when there was dialogue across the aisle. Ronald Reagan provides an example of one who could speak radically (right) and act (relatively) pragmatically. (Reagan, like Clinton, wanted to be liked.) I don’t find personal vitriol useful. Even those with whom I disagree, I hope I can reason with and establish some common ground. For instance, I’ve voted against Charles Grassley every opportunity that I’ve had (100% unsuccessfully) since 1974, but I’m sure I could enjoy a chat with the Senator. I’ve seen him at the airport and at girls' volleyball tournaments by himself, no entourage, and he appears to be modest, unassuming, and pleasant. On the other hand, his attitudes have moved from H.R. Gross conservatism to Tea Party nuttiness. While he’s probably a swell guy, his politics are antediluvian. (The fact that Iowa could elect him and Tom Harkin all of those years shows how “swell guy” counts for more than any particular political stance.)

And what should we make of Brooks’s comments about mockery, citing the work of psychologist John Gottman? I assume that he’s aiming at Jon Stewart and (the late) Stephen Colbert. Sometimes they’ve walked the edge with their mockery, but most of the time their satire and parody have seemed the only appropriate response to some of the inanity that attempts to pass for legitimate political and cultural discourse. A medieval court fool was probably more likely to lose his head than to influence the king’s policy, but in a democratic society, we should cherish the “fools” who mock the pretenses of the powerful. It can edge toward cynicism, but only for the truly cynical at heart. I believe that Jon Stewart and (the late) Stephen Colbert, for all of their mocking and satirical humor, probably are better citizens and persons than many of those whom they mocked. 

And for those who post anonymously? Almost always an act of unjustified cowardice and often indicative of the traits that Brooks lists: “sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism”. (N.B. “Machiavellianism” is not representative of Machiavelli’s project as a whole.) 

Paul Krugman’s column, “Fighting the Derp”, provides a fitting bookend to the Brooks piece. In it, Krugman defines “derp” (courtesy of “South Park”) as “people who keep saying the same thing no matter how much evidence accumulates that it’s completely wrong”. (Query: is “derp” the people who keep promoting the same disproven contentions or the disproven contentions themselves?) In any event, Krugman’s piece raises a couple of important points: How can we distinguish derp from honest policy disagreements based on limited knowledge? And how should we fight derp? As to the first point, Krugman suggests the policy prescriptions and descriptions of reality that don’t vary with changing evidence and circumstances is a strong sign of derp. And we must be on guard within ourselves to avoid derp, primarily by remaining vary cautious about ideas, reports, and recommendations that fit with our preconceptions (the confirmation bias, in Kahneman terms). By the way, Krugman filed a follow-up piece entitled "I Do Not Think That Derp Means What You Think It Means", further defining and distinguishing the issues.

Thus I think that I’m resolved to hate derp (the phenomena) and love (as best I can can) the derper (my word of the person conveying the derp), a variant on the Christian injunction to hate the sin but to love the sinner. But I must say, I reserve a sense of caution about a serial derper, about this person’s intelligence and, more importantly, about this person’s ethics. I’m loath the trust a serial derper. 

And as to public debate and intellectual battle—let it fly! Let me end with this quote from C.S. Lewis, no stranger to intellectual combat: 

Do not misunderstand. I am not in the least deprecating your insults; I have enjoyed these twenty years l’honneur d’etre une cible and am now pachydermatous. I am not even rebuking your bad manners; I am not Mr. Turveydrop and “gentlemanly deportment” is not a subject I am paid to teach. What shocks me is that students, academics, men of letters, should display what I had thought was an essentially uneducated inability to differentiate between a disputation and a quarrel. The real objection to this sort of thing is that it is all a distraction from the issue. You waste on calling me liar and hypocrite time you ought to have spent on refuting my position.

Zaleski, Philip; Zaleski, Carol (2015-06-02). The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (p. 472). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

To this I say, "Amen".

David Brooks: Sort of Right But Doesn't Want to Fight

"My conservative friend"

David Brooks has recently written two consecutive columns that address the social, economic, and political problems of inequality and social dysfunction in contemporary America. As is often the case, I find a lot to agree with Brooks and some to disagree with, and these two columns placed side-by-side provide a perfect opportunity to get a sense of sources of agreement and disagreement.

In the first column, “The Temptation of Hillary”, Brooks decries what he believes is the possible shift in the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton from an emphasis on what he calls “human capital progressivism” to “redistributionist progressivism”. He argues that the problems identified with the decline of middle-class wages and earnings arise from differences in education and educational opportunities. Accordingly, he believes that a continued emphasis on education should continue, while he decries the possibility of shaping political remedies to our growing inequality.

Brooks ignores the secular stagnation hypothesis of Larry Summers and The Great Stagnation of Tyler Cowen, to name but a couple of those who have identified and considered long-term structural problems going back to the 1970s. Brooks wants to limit the focus to the Great Recession of 2008 or shortly before and claim that wage and earning inequality is not an endemic problem. Indeed, as we read in the next essay, Brooks prefers to consider the problem as one of norms and morals. While I don't disagree that norms and morals are fundamental component of the problem, Brooks wants to continue thinking about remedies that avoid issues of political economy.

The more I consider issues of macroeconomics, the more I believe that the late 19th century divorce between political economy and economics was a mistake. Policies of governments made through political institutions; i.e., through non-market decision-making processes such as elections, legislative bodies, and lobbying, are of paramount importance in determining market outcomes. Political decisions that shaped the American economy in the immediate post-World War II era of the 1950s and 1960s began changing in the 1970s for a variety of reasons. Since that time, a market ideology has been dominant in American politics. This ideology reduced the role of government in addressing the shortcomings of the market. (I believe that perfect markets work perfectly and that perfect markets are as common as a perfect democracy or a perfect circle in nature. Or, to paraphrase what Winston Churchill said about democracy, a market economy is the worst type of economic system except when compared to all the others that have been tried from time to time.) I give credit for to Brooks for stating that the choice between what he terms “human capital progressivism” with its emphasis on education and “redistributionist progressivism” that he believes involves a redistribution of wealth, is not an absolute divide but one of measured differences. This is certainly true, and I don't support any type of full-scale redistributionist scheme. I’ve every sympathy for Brooks in what he seems to argue tacitly:  redistributionist politics are the toughest political fights and could harm the nation as a whole, especially in a time when we are already extremely divided. (Although I believe that much of the divides is already a surrogate redistributionist battle.) I also believe (along with Brooks?) that the politics of envy is the worst politics of all. (This is not something that I recall his having written or addressed directly, but I discern it is an undertone of much of his on-going commentary.)

The second essay, "The Costs of Relativism" is a review and commentary on Robert Putnam's recent work, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis. In that book, Putnam and his colleagues look at the differences between the children of educated Americans versus those of less educated Americans. The differential is staggering. However, what neither Putnam nor Brooks discuss sufficiently (per a review of Putnam here, as I haven’t read the book) is that education is a direct correlation not only of future earnings, but most likely of past (parental) earnings and wealth. Indeed, one critic of the book noted the irony that Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, fails to address the public policies and political decisions that have led to the increasingly gross distortions in the lives of children brought about by differences in wealth and education. Brooks also (largely) ignores the political and public policy aspects and ramifications of the problems and instead focuses on norms and morals.

I don't disagree with Brooks in that norms and morals play a huge role. Indeed, one useful dividing line between political outlooks can be drawn between those who focus on the individual and the individual’s personal attributes as defined by their morals, norms, and character, and those who focus on these society-wide political and economic systems that shape the environment in which individuals live. I accept both perspectives as different ways to look at the same problem. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but to believe that one need only be a Horatio Alger or positive thinker to get ahead and overcome a lack of education or opportunity is the grossest kind of deceit.

Brooks acknowledges that better policy and application of greater resources (money) have some role to play, but norms and morals are the most important aspect. He laments what he perceives as a lack of judgment by those who fail, and again I have some sympathy for this. A degree of tough love is appropriate when people are transgressing boundaries, but the widespread breakdown in marital and family standards are often exacerbated by the economic pressures that wage stagnation and a decline in public institutions (like public schools and colleges) are enforcing upon families. The simple matter is that marriages are more likely to be successful and happy if they're not under constant attack because of money problems. The degree that a lack of money and resources can be blamed on the bad choices that individuals and families make and the degree of blame that we can attribute to the economic and political system varies greatly. But when the pattern is as extensive and widespread as we find in America today, then we are justified in  giving greater weight to the economic and political forces shaping the our environment. In Iowa, since the 1970s, most Iowans know of the personal and family costs of economic decline and dislocation. I used to joke – although it's not really a laughing matter – that my my hometown declined (in population, economics, and social welfare) after I left for college in 1971. Of course, it had nothing to do with my leaving and everything to do with a wider pattern of economic decline and dislocation found among the mostly white middle-class in rural and small-town America. The vice-grip of economic dislocation is the source of the populist anger and Tea Party irrationality that erupted on the American scene and that now governs the Republican Party. It’s no coincidence that Iowa’s newest U.S. Senator is from Red Oak (very near my home town), located in rural, white middle America that’s experienced such a decline. It’s ironic (and sad) that her election was paid for in large measure by the Koch Brothers and their ilk with an agenda that will do no favors for the vast majority of her supporters. Elections like the last one are a lashing out. As David Frum his written, the divide of populism in America is not so much between wealth and poverty as it is between the educated and the (relatively) uneducated. ("American populism has almost always concentrated its anger against the educated rather than the wealthy. So much so that you might describe contemporary American politics as a class struggle between those with more education than money against those with more money than education: Jon Stewart’s America versus Bill O’Reilly’s, Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin.")

If it was as easy as Brooks implies that by merely enunciating and enforcing renewed social norms and morals we would mend the current rents in the American social fabric, that would be great. But while I believe this effort worthwhile, it needs a complimentary boost from changes in our political economy. Capitalism as a social and economic system is one driven by incessant change and the clear logic of personal (or corporate) profit. The capitalist system is terribly new measured against the whole of human history and which has been amped-up by industrialization and improving technologies over the course of less than three centuries. It needs repair. 

We are mortal, incarnated humans whose rationality is limited. We humans are not homo economus. We need social norms, we need markets, we need political deliberation. We need strong families. We need love. There is no magic bullet, but neither is there any source of change that we should ignore. Brooks tries to ignore the political economic aspects of necessary changes because it gets messy, but we can't afford to avoid those tough decisions.

Further Thoughts on the Election

I have been digesting the election results and giving further thought to what happened. Below are some random ideas that occur to me:

The Republicans have always been the party of the wealthy. This also used to mean that they were the party of the better educated. However, that has certainly changed. While Republicans captured a majority of into the votes of individuals making more than $100,000 a year, they didn’t do well among the better educated and many of the affluent. In addition to capturing the wealthy, Republicans tended to attract those who live in primarily rural areas, such as western Iowa. What these individuals who live in these communities, as small business owners and as laborers, have in common with billionaires like Sheldon Adelson? I do not know. This is the “what’s the matter with Kansas?” problem that Thomas Frank has written about. Of course, this reflects the strange marriage of the very wealthy with the socially conservative.

Looking at post-election demographics is also interesting. Obama carried the Catholic vote by a couple of points, which I found interesting. He garnered a majority of the least educated and the most educated, but lost those in between. Does that demonstrate that a little education is a dangerous thing? It’s an interesting split. As I mentioned above, most of the wealthiest voted Republican. This is, of course, traditional. But I wonder, do the rich think that they can enjoy their wealth in a society that is, on the whole, less wealthy and more unequal? Of course, this is how civilizations have worked from their beginning until very recently; that is until economic and political modernity changed the world so drastically. I compare the belief that the wealthy can enjoy their wealth in a sea of poverty with what I experience here in India. I really wonder how the rich can think of themselves as well off when streets, sewers, utilities are poorly maintained (if at all); pollution is rampant (air & water); and all manner of private goods are not as easily available as they should be. The impoverishment of the public sector deeply attenuates the benefits of wealth. But, some think that if they have enough private wealth they can buy themselves happiness.

Politicians have always been known for lack of candor and for maintaining an escape hatch on most issues. In earlier days, candidates could say one thing in Shenandoah and another in Iowa City. But since the advent of national news coverage, this becomes more difficult. With this campaign, we saw a whole new level of mendacity from that Romney. I’ve never seen a candidate criticized so much for reversing his positions or trying to alter the facts (i.e., lie) as Romney has received. (This piece by Kevin Kruse is representative.)But not only between his time as governor of Massachusetts to his time as Republican presidential candidate, but even from the time of the primaries earlier in the year to the time of his campaign this fall. And yet, far too few seemed to mind. (Garry Wills, of course, is an insightful exception.) Now, I am willing to give candidates some slack, and I’ve always been a believer in Emerson’s admonition that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” However, Mitt Romney has taken this beyond any rational prudence. Everyone should have developed grave concerns about his character. This baffles me because while I disagreed very much with his limited worldview and his willingness to pander to the Republican right wing, I didn’t consider Romney, a candidate of deficient character. In his private life, he seems like a fairly forthright and honest fellow. This either means that he was willing to do almost anything to get elected friend (and he did almost get elected) or that he thought that he could somehow square the circle. Neither of these options is attractive, and all the more reason his defeat relieves me of having to wrestle with such vexing thoughts.

Since I left the Republican party about three decades ago, I’ve never been as enthusiastic a Democrat as some. Party ties can bind us in a way that can seriously distort our judgment. I’m thinking particularly of persons like David Frum and David Brooks, conservatives for whom I have a modicum of respect and to whom I give credit as thoughtful observers of contemporary politics. However, I believe both of them tried to justify a vote for Romney by suggesting that Romney would ignore his promises to the Republican right wing and forge a working coalition with Democrats. This assumes the Democrats would keep their goodwill, which, heaven help them, they probably are forced to do because they’re so damned reasonable. But this suggests that we should have elected a man who would turn tail again to please the crowd. First, this is a long shot that, because the political realities would’ve made Romney beholden to a Republican Congress that has much closer ties to the radical right that now controls the party. But second, as I suggested in the preceding paragraph, this defect in character could have made him a tough person to work with, let alone trust.

I highly recommend this article by Rick Perlstein about mendacity in the conservative movement. It’s a pretty shocking piece, but Pearlstein does his homework. I’m not sure what to make of it, but it is an explanation of Romney’s mendacity and the deception within the conservative movement. Krugman has also suggested that conservatives grasp for power in a way that distorts all judgment. Perhaps that’s true.

How much will we see a replay of the politics of the Great Depression! Oh, that Obama will now become an FDR! He needs to drive a hard bargain at this point, and I think a lot of us are holding our breath about this. Stay tuned for further developments!