David Brooks, "The Center-Right Moment": A Call for Moderation in an Immoderate World

Hot on the heels of Cameron's victory in the UK, David Brooks concludes a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Center-Right Moment" by declaring:

"Globally, voters are disillusioned with large public institutions. They seem to want to reassert local control and their own particular nationalism (Scottish or anything else). But they also seem to want a slightly smaller public sector, strong welfare state reform and more open and vibrant labor markets as a path to prosperity.

For some reason, American politicians are fleeing from this profile, Hillary Clinton to the further left and Republicans to the right."

"For some reason"? In fact, the reason is fairly obvious. The Democratic Party has been hijacked by its "progressive wing," and Hillary Clinton is determined to ward off a potential challenge from Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. On the other side of the aisle, a conservative Rand Paul is polling well against Clinton.


Or stated otherwise, US primaries do not foster moderation, and in order to win the general election, you must first be nominated.


There is no longer room for moderation.

Paul Krugman, "High Plains Moochers": Is There Still Room in the Middle in America?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "High Plains Moochers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/krugman-high-plains-moochers.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman addresses the controversy which has arisen with respect to Cliven Bundy over the use of state-owned lands without payment. Krugman writes:

"American conservatism used to have room for fairly sophisticated views about the role of government. Its economic patron saint used to be Milton Friedman, who advocated aggressive money-printing, if necessary, to avoid depressions. It used to include environmentalists who took pollution seriously but advocated market-based solutions like cap-and-trade or emissions taxes rather than rigid rules.

But today’s conservative leaders were raised on Ayn Rand’s novels and Ronald Reagan’s speeches (as opposed to his actual governance, which was a lot more flexible than the legend). They insist that the rights of private property are absolute, and that government is always the problem, never the solution.

The trouble is that such beliefs are fundamentally indefensible in the modern world, which is rife with what economists call externalities — costs that private actions impose on others, but which people have no financial incentive to avoid. You might want, for example, to declare that what a farmer does on his own land is entirely his own business; but what if he uses pesticides that contaminate the water supply, or antibiotics that speed the evolution of drug-resistant microbes? You might want to declare that government intervention never helps; but who else can deal with such problems?"

I agree with Krugman.

Moreover, as observed in yesterday's blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/maureen-dowd-slaves-to-prejudice-why-be.html), I am horrified by Bundy's racist utterances, which should have been denounced by Fox News and Hannity without delay.

But what I find most interesting with respect to this controversy is American polarization. In addition to a response from a reader who obsesses over my hair (Clothes? Watches? Haircuts? You think I give a damn?), I had a comment from a reader who gloated over the election of Obama notwithstanding his 20-year association with Jeremiah Wright. "Hahaha," he/she wrote twice. In fact, given the absence of Obama adminstration achievements over the past five and a half years, the joke is on America.

A second reader questioned whether by the same reasoning, i.e. my abhorrence of Obama's past association with Wright, I would also object to a Rand Paul presidential candidacy. Well, I also detest Rand.

The assumption, of course, is that if I perceive Obama as a failure or was dismayed by his association with Wright, I surely must be a Tea Party supporter or something further to the right. However, I am pro-choice, favor gay marriage, opposed the Second Gulf War and US ground involvement in Afghanistan, and believe in a ban on the sale of assault rifles. Do I still qualify as a conservative? Perhaps my economics, which are not in keeping with those of Krugman, are conservative. Unlike Krugman, I was revolted by Occupy Wall Street, although I have consistently protested the excesses of hedge funds and banks.

But more to the point, must you either be a progressive or a conservative today? Is there no longer any room in the middle?

Can the Republicans still field someone other than a Tea Party supporter in 2016? We'll have to wait and see, but if it were to come down to a choice between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul, I would surely back Hillary, albeit with a laundry clip over my nose.

Maureen Dowd, "The Gospel According to Paul": Resurrecting the Stained Blue Dress

The blue dress stained with presidential seminal fluid? Honestly, with all the problems facing the world today, I just don't care. Yet, some sixteen years after the event, Senator Rand Paul would again have us focus our attention on Bill's indiscretion. Spare me.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Gospel According to Paul" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-gospel-according-to-paul.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Maureen Dowd tells us about Paul's efforts to resurrect this Oval Office indiscretion and sully Hillary's as yet unannounced campaign for the presidency in 2016. Interestingly enough, Dowd seems willing to play ball with Paul:

"I agree that Paul’s aim was true. He distracted from the Republicans’ abysmal war on women by pointing at an abysmal moment in feminist history, when feminists betrayed their principles to defend a president who had behaved in a regressive way with women because he had progressive policies on women.

Instead of owning up, Bill Clinton forced his humiliated wife, a feminist icon, and women in his cabinet — Madeleine Albright and Donna Shalala — into the dreadful position of defending him when he was lying about his conduct.

Seven years after the feminists tried to bring down a Supreme Court nominee for sexual harassment — but really for his conservative stances — they went into contortions to defend Clinton. Gloria Steinem wrote a Times Op-Ed titled 'Why Feminists Support Clinton' that somehow boiled down to 'yes means yes.'"

Dowd's catty conclusion:

"It is not so simple to cast Hillary as a victim; she was also part of the damage-control team to vouch for her husband and undermine his mistress. White House aides and other Democrats spread the word that Monica was a troubled young woman with stalker tendencies.

. . . .

Monica had to be sacrificed for the greater good of the Clintons and feminist ambitions. Hillary was furious at Bill — stories were leaked that he was sleeping on the couch — but she also had to protect her political investment. If he collapsed, she was done. And she was going up — to the Senate and eventually the Oval Office."

Me? I don't like Paul or Hillary, but judge Hillary on the basis of the Lewinsky scandal? No way. Instead, we should be examining Hillary's accomplishments as a senator and secretary of state, i.e. none.

Gail Collins, "Talk Of The Town": Rand Paul Drones On

Sure, you're a law abiding citizen, but let's suppose an SUV just ran a red light and smashed into the passenger side of your vehicle. Your car can still be driven, but your husband has been severely injured in the accident and is unconscious and losing blood. The nearest hospital is twenty minutes away. Do you wait for the police and an ambulance, or do you hit the gas and, en route to the hospital, exceed the local speed limit of 40 miles per hour? A no brainer, right?

But now let's look at the hypothetical situation I posed yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/maureen-dowd-repent-dick-cheney.html). Suppose terrorists have hidden a dirty bomb in Manhattan and are threatening to detonate the bomb unless the US releases all of its Guantanamo prisoners. The bomb is timed to go off in another two hours, and there is no time to evacuate the city. Millions are expected to die slow painful deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer unless the bomb is found and defused. Then suddenly, one of the al-Qaeda conspirators is captured, but he refuses to talk. Would you read him his rights and wait for his lawyer or waterboard him?

Again, I know what I would do.

There are emergencies that demand immediate action. On the other hand, there are also instances when life and death comes into play, but there is time for judicial oversight.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Talk Of The Town" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/opinion/collins-the-talk-of-the-town.html?_r=0), Gail Collins grudgingly acknowledges that Senator Rand Paul may have a point with regard to his filibuster of the confirmation of John Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

"Paul had no particular problem with the nomination, which he acknowledged was going to pass once he stopped talking. But the debate over Brennan had brought up the question of drone strikes. The junior senator from Kentucky wanted President Obama to promise not to use drones to kill Americans on American soil. “At least we need to know what are the rules,” he said sometime during hour five.

Fair enough. The Obama administration had been unnecessarily dodgy on this point. The very fact that the president was ordering the death of American citizens anywhere without oversight was worrying. Shouldn’t there be a special court to sign off on these things?"

Collins concludes in irritatingly vapid fashion:

"Still, after years of faux filibusters, it was a nice change of pace. Exhausting yourself and irritating your colleagues for a cause is way better than stopping progress without taking the least bit of trouble."

I'm no Tea Partier or fan of Rand Paul, but his insistance on reviewing the guidelines involving the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists and inevitably innocent bystanders goes beyond "stopping progress," as Collins would have it. Apparently, people like Collins have no problem administering death sentences so long as Barry has his hand on the joy stick.

More information concerning the Benghazi attack, which is increasing pointing to the fact that the State Department should have seen it coming? Why would Collins want any such information, which could further discomfit Barry and jeopardize Hillary's chances in 2016?

Indeed, absolutely nothing should stand in the way of Obama as he continues to populate his cabinet with white guys comprising the worst and the dumbest.

The latest embarrassment for Obama: On Friday, Michelle Obama and John Kerry will award the Secretary of State’s International Women of Courage Award at a State Department ceremony. Among those who have come to Washington to receive the award is Samira Ibrahim, who tweeted on July 18 last year, "An explosion on a bus carrying Israelis in Burgas airport in Bulgaria on the Black Sea. Today is a very sweet day with a lot of very sweet news." As further reported by The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-and-john-kerry-honor-anti-semite-and-911-fan_706547.html):

"As a mob was attacking the United States embassy in Cairo on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, pulling down the American flag and raising the flag of Al Qaeda, Ibrahim wrote on twitter: 'Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May every year come with America burning.' Possibly fearing the consequences of her tweet, she deleted it a couple of hours later, but not before a screen shot was saved by an Egyptian activist."

Can it get worse during Obama's second term?

Yes It Will!

Ross Douthat's "Rand and Rubio": Make Way for China

Ross Douthat, the token conservative who writes a once-weekly New York Times column, today examines division within the Republican Party concerning U.S. foreign policy in an op-ed entitled "Rand and Rubio" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion). According to Douthat:

"But while this division shows up in the current presidential field, it’s distilled to its essence in two high-profile Republicans who aren’t running (not in 2012, at least): Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

. . . .

Rubio is the great neoconservative hope, the champion of a foreign policy that boldly goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy. In the Senate, he’s constantly pressed for a more hawkish line against the Mideast’s bad actors. His maiden Senate speech was a paean to national greatness, whose peroration invoked John F. Kennedy and insisted that America remain the 'watchman on the wall of world freedom.'

Paul, on the other hand, has smoothed the crankish edges off his famous father’s antiwar conservatism, reframing it in the language of constitutionalism, the national interest and the budget deficit."

Douthat tells us that the U.S. is tired of war, and unable to still share in Marco Rubio's vision, he concludes that Rand Paul is right.

First, as a minor aside, I believe that Marco Rubio will be running in 2012 -- as the Republican vice presidential candidate. He could well prove the key to garnering Hispanic votes, and, if a viable Republican presidential candidate is selected, Rubio could make the difference between victory and defeat.

But on a more substantive note, although Americans are indeed tired of the protracted involvements in Afghanistan (I have consistently opposed the U.S. ground presence in Afghanistan) and Iraq, why should this mean that the U.S. need to shift to the other extreme: isolationism. Submerged in a recession and with no signs of "change" promised by Obama, has the time come to throw in the towel and step aside for Communist China?

Indeed, the Chinese are preparing to assume this leadership role and have just revealed that they are launching their first aircraft carrier (see: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/chinese-aircraft-carrier-revealed/story?id=13800990), as they continue to terrorize Tibet and lead the world in executions (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/china-leads-the-world-in_n_518719.html).

Maybe it's because I'm getting old and rigid, but I remain a firm believer in American exceptionalism. This is not going to change. Not now, not ever.

However, concerning U.S. involvement in future conflagrations, you have to choose your fights carefully, and when you do step into the ring, you need to move swiftly and decisively. Protracted involvements without realizable defined goals, e.g., Afghanistan, are a recipe for ruin.