The Only Republican in San Francisco

Kerrey on Iraq

I don't talk about Iraq all that much, and when I do, it's typically about domestic politics more than the war itself. I have noted in the past that the supposed "left" in this country and others has abandoned any claims to humanitarian goals -- which is to say, there was and is an important liberal case for using force in Iraq. This idea led me to folks like Christopher Hitchens, no righty he, who made that case from the start.

Today I came across Bob Kerrey's argument along those lines, it's a must-read. Here are a few bits:

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would. [...]

Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq.

That last point is a subtle one. The presence of terrorism in Iraq has less to do with the presence of US troops, and more to do with the presence of would-be Iraqi democrats (lowercase-d).

Understand the difference? For this reason, violence will not subside if we leave Iraq. The presence of such democrats would ensure that their repudiation (read: genocide and exile) remains a violent priority.

If violence were to subside in our absence, it would be due to the successful elimination of anyone fighting for first-world values, ie, the true liberals.

The Politico falls for Mitt

Terry Michael, who describes himself as a libertarian Democrat (the what now?) is quite smitten with Mitt Romney, having seen his web videos:

For the past year, I have been haranguing the college political journalists I teach with the prediction that Romney is going to get the Republican nomination and will likely be the next president, because Democrats have no farm team of successful governors. And America almost never elects a sitting member of Congress president [...] because voters intuitively know the difference between a legislator and a leader.

...and...

No one else in either party’s field of presidential wannabes comes close to Romney’s communication skill and executive presence. He makes Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., look like just another charming candidate for high school class president. [...]

Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton with his pants up.

Yeah, I've seen the potential for a while. Mostly I am interested in Romney's records of measurable success in running government and business. He understands wonky stuff, metrics, and real economics, things that are not necessary found in a career politician.

(His video site is pretty slick, btw.)

He's still my fave pick for the Republicans, because the 'Pubs biggest issue is not ideology, it's competence. Unfortunately, Romney on the ticket would not leave room for Giuliani, as they are both northeasterners.

McCain, though he is technically southern, is increasingly less attractive to folks like me. Better potential running mates are dark horses like Mike Huckabee of Arkansas -- popular, good human interest story -- and Haley Barbour, who has succeeded in cleaning up Mississippi while Louisiana has struggled.

The vagina epilogues

Looks like John Edwards' two definitely-not-bigoted bloggers have "volunteered" to step down from their posts on his campaign. It's a smart and necessary move by Edwards, though of course he's trying to have it both ways: unburden himself from having to answer for the bloggers' statements on "Christofascists" (and their own vaginas), while at the same time trying not to incur the wrath of the Tourettic left which bore them in the first place.

But he had to let them go. While it's a big buzz in the blogosphere, it is still a vagina-in-a-teacup, which is to say, the majority of voters have no vagina what it's about. Best for Edwards to get out now.

These bloggers -- at least one of whom thinks herself a "twat" -- are careening through their 14th minute of fame this week, and as of next, you won't remember their ... names.

----

PS, I intended to title this "The vagina demagogues" but someone beat me to it. I did manage to find that Ms. Marcotte has mentioned her own and other people's vaginas over 300 times in the last year or so. Just sayin'.

Romney to announce tomorrow

To the surprise of precisely no one, Mitt Romney will officially announce his presidential campaign tomorrow. Here is the webcast.

I'm a 25. What's your sign?

I scored a 25 on this test of liberalism vs. conservatism, with 0 being the most liberal and 40 the most conservative. The limitation of such a test is that it probably puts social conservatism in the same bucket as fiscal conservatism. So it says I am only moderately right-of-center, which may be broadly true, but on matters of the role of government I am not especially moderate. (h/t Glenn)

I prefer a test with a couple of dimensions, and some orthogonality. Here is the World's Smallest Political Quiz, on which I appear as the following red dot:

Which is about right. You'll notice I am neither right nor left on social issues. Which is to say, I don't give a damn so long as everyone makes their own decisions.

Further, if you consider yourself a libertarian, you might try Bryan Caplan's Libertarian Purity Test. I scored a 47 out of 160 which means "Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on." I've been told that. Thanks Bryan.

The Scarlet R

Dr. Helen has a fun post about whether one should call themselves a Republican, or care how people respond to the term. When I started this blog, I though about it some, but mostly knew that a) it was catchy and b) it would drive people around here crazy.

In some ways I underestimated how people would react when presented with the R word. I was back east for a high school reunion (won't tell you which year) and an old, dear friend of mine, upon learning that I have a blog that is in some way "Republican", immediately said, "What's it called, 'I Am An Asshole'"?

(She's a college professor, too, btw.)

I've learned that, at heart, people do not like differences, or often even the appearance of differences. While many folks I talk to have a sincere interest in issues, a similar number have a Tourettic reaction that assumes I carry certain beliefs, even if we've never discussed a particular topic. Or, more likely, they ask me to defend this or that person who calls themselves a Republican.

And this is from "progressives", mind you. If one were to meet a black guy and immediately assume he likes rap, or a Jewish dude and ask him about money, what sort of person would that make you?

I understand that it is natural to think of people in groups. We all do it, it is a very human instinct. But what separates a person in my mind is one who can actually imagine a world of consenting individuals, with all it entails. That's progressive.

It's also really hard. Most people won't do it, and that's perfectly human. But to imagine that one is somehow more progressive or tolerant, while displaying no such characteristics, well, that's why I started this blog.

Anyway, back to Helen's topic. Sometimes I feel the need to explain to people that "Well, I am a free-market libertarian" when they respond badly to the R word. I considered not using it for a while.

But a good friend demonstrated something to me a few years ago, without his knowing. He is a lifelong Catholic, if not an especially pious one. When a wave of priest-molestation scandals came up, he continued to tell folks he is a Catholic. He caught shit from group-thinkers and headline-repeaters, but had the courage to know what he stands for and what he doesn't. He assumed a base amount of intelligence in the person he was talking to.

More recently, a new friend of mine -- who claims to have had a framed photo of Russell Kirk growing up, and whose dad read the WSJ editorial page at the dinner table (!) -- said, why wouldn't you call yourself a Republican, if you know what you believe?

She's right. There is little value in playing semantics. Yeah, I am Republican. I am also a libertarian, and perhaps I am a conservative, not sure. At the end of the day, if more folks will embrace the ideas that I think are important, I will be thrilled. No matter what they call themselves.

Coupla Romney quickies

Looks like Mitt Romney has signed up one of my favorite bloggers, Greg Mankiw, to join his PAC. Actually, it's a bit blogocentric to characterize him that way. He's a prominent Harvard economist and former Bush adviser. Tomato, tomahto.

As I've said before, Romney is my top pick for 2008. He's not just a doctrinaire fiscal conservative, like your humble host, but someone who actually has made government succeed under conservative principles.

Now, while I would not underestimate him, I suspect he won't be the presidential nominee in 2008. He's got the management and the economics right, which are my focus. But he has no foreign policy experience, and our times are defined by foreign policy.

I think a likely ticket will be McCain/Romney. McCain plays the hawkish elder statesman and Romney the domestic whizkid, who spends 8 years learning the ropes of the executive branch. That would put him on the ticket in 2016, or perhaps 2012 if McCain decides he is too old.

I am not incredibly impressed with McCain, personally. He is a nanny-stater, which is to say that he thinks gov't should be relatively activist. The most prominent example of this, of course, is McCain-Feingold. Newt Gingrich had a few words on that today.

$2.6 billion election? Fantastic.

Drudge links to this piece in the Financial Times about spending on the 2006 election cycle. Some might have a knee-jerk reaction to this, saying that somehow it represents too much money in politics.

Like many folks, I believe that money is speech. And, when that much money is spent, you know that most of it is going to communications of some sort. I think that's great, and is a measure of the importance and national interest in the election.

Of course it's messy, it's ugly, it is self-interested and thoroughly American. But I have to wonder: is it enough?

To put it in perspective, have a look at other things Americans spend money on each year:

Salty snacks: $22b (here)

Pet food: $14.5b (here)

Video games: $10.5b (here)

Sandwich spreads: $3b (here)

By contrast, we as a country spend $2.6b every two years to elect the leaders of the free world. That's about $9 per American, over a two year period, or $4.50 a year. If you spent less than that on lunch today, it's on me.

Now, part of me understands that the reason that politicians spend to be elected is that they expect the spoils -- power, more money -- to be worth the investment. And on that level, it's a sad state of affairs.

But the larger picture is one of a free market of ideas. The alternative to this sort of free spending is a government that controls it. As such, the government effectively decides what can be said about government.

That's great for incumbents, but not for change.

ABC movie factoid; "Not Without my Anus"

You might find this little factoid from Michael Medved interesting, regarding the controversial ABC series.

Bush was president during the period covered by the miniseries (February, 1993, through September 11, 2001) for only eight months; Clinton was president for eight years (less a single month). In other words, Clinton occupied the White House for 93% of the actual historical period under consideration, but his shortcomings occupy less than 70% of the miniseries running time.

I would have to predict that the series is probably more heat than light, high on drama and short on facts. In other words, it's a made-for-TV movie. I can't help but be reminded of the Terrance and Phillip tear-jerker, Not Without My Anus.

But the real, verifiable McCarthyism of the Dems is a sight to behold.

Remember folks, it's controversial.

An Occam's approach to insanity

A motorist went a rampage here in my beloved hometown. Some, like Hugh, are speculating (with some reason) that there is a political/religious agenda behind it, but I prefer to take an Occam's approach. There are myriad ways to be nuts, so until we have more evidence let's imagine this person as an individual whose troubles go deeper than any political grievance.

Question: should the punishment be any different should we discover that this qualifies as a "hate" crime? Do the contents of his mind somehow mitigate the outcome?