1. Some have been skeptical of my prediction below, thinking the Republicans will do somewhat better. (At this point, the Democrats’ keeping the House would end up as one of the greatest upsets in American poliitcal history.) But I note that REAL CLEAR POLITICS points toward a 50 seat pick up today. And in SENATE races: The only changes I see is that the Republican seems more likely to win in Washington and less likely to win in West Virginia. (I’ve thought for over a month that Harry Reid would lose.) The generic ballot difference in some polls is now 10%, which would translate to a somewhat bigger victory. But the president’s approval rating remains at 45-46%, which is better than Bush in 2006.
2. The most astute commentators (such as Chicago’s Chapman) see that Americans are thrilled with neither party right now. (They liked the Republicans back in 1994.) But they seemed more attuned to the advantages of divided government–both (and studies back them up) as a means of controlling spending and as a way of containing the evildoing specific to each side. The most cynical or angry American voters (such as some who go to Tea Parties) think that Bush and his Republicans and Obama and his Democrats were/are both irresponsible screw ups. So let incompetence and corruption counteract incompetence and incorruption (as FEDERALIST 51 sort of says).
3. Ralph’s taste of Manent below, of course, can readily be applied to the campaign. Europeans should be aware that, for now, the effectual protection of rights everywhere depends on American power. Americans, it follows, should be anxious about a president who even toys with buying into the European idea that the religion of humanity can reign with good intentions and noble words alone. We can say that, in some measure, that our election is about to have a very anti-European result (and I’m all for that!): We see that both the lurch toward their social democracy (when it comes, most of all, to health care) and the confusion of “soft power” with real power (or real guns [and the willingness to use them] and stuff) threaten our liberty. Both, the Europeans have shown us, are unsustainable. Most of all, many experts, including Obama himself, miscalculated when they assumed his victory was evidence that we wanted to be at least a little more European. Manent reminds us that our proud points of distinction serve not only our interests but those of those of those ungrateful Europeans.
4. I still hope, for the record, that divided government will make both sides better. I’ve become a big fan, over the last few years, of the thought that what’s best about America has been produced by legislative compromise–beginning with the Declaration of Independence.
5. At church, I picked up a summary of the political statement of the Catholic bishops relevant to this election. I note, gratefully, that the bishops’ insights aren’t intended to displace prudence, and that they are to be considered as somewhere between merely one opinion among many and an authoritative moral teaching. The emphasis was on life and dignity issues, beginning with the importance of prudently doing what’s possible to protect the most vulnerable among us, especially the unborn. What should be done now is a matter of controversy, but the least to be said is that Catholics should find it very hard to vote for a candidate not for working for the reversal of ROE v. WADE. Perhaps it’s inevitable that abortion policy will be the product of legislative compromise, but the Court needs to back off and make room for a compromise that does some justice to the pro-life position.
6. There’s a lot to be said for and against what the bishops say. But it seems to me that Catholics, against the libertarians, have to open to policies that alleviate the plight of the genuinely unfortunate. They even have to agree (with appropriate moderation) with parts of Jeremy Beer’s polemic against our meritocracy; all you have to do is glance at the scary movie THE SOCIAL NETWORK to see how much we’ve detached merit (defined as the mental labor that generates power) from any sense of virtue and personal responsibility.
7. And I agree that a road to citizenship should be made available to anyone working in our country (meaning, first of all, the “illegal aliens” that everyone knows are working here). Catholics, too, have to at least acknowledge that the “competitive marketplace,” globalization, and so forth at least exist in tension with what’s best for families. I also note that the bishops seem to endorse a prudent anthropocentic environmentalism, as opposed to a shrill and misanthropic one. Nothing I’ve said should be confused with a Porcher indictment of capitalism, the free market, high technology etc.
October 31st, 2010 | 5:09 pm
I like RCP and this week they announced that the race in my district, the Ohio 6th, is up in the air. Given that hope and aware of just how strongly union and Democrat the district is, I’m guessing the GOP takes 55-60 seat in the House, and 10 in the Senate with the caveat that the Tea Partiers will begin immediately the effort to remove any RINO who may reveal themselves to be unworthy. This is a real political rising!
Whoever wins for the GOP is going to be monitored by the TP very closely because the TPers are determined to, step-by-step, re-establish a republican gummint.
How do we do “divided” gummint when one pole of the tension is ‘republicanism’ and the other a highly centralized statism?
That is the Democratic Party is one that eschews the traditional ‘American’ virtues and embraces the old, tired, and murderous psycho-pathologies of the past century. I can’t see how there can be a dialectic between the Democrats and this new batch of conservative, American, Republicans. Politically, perhaps literally, one or the other has to be crushed.
However, ‘divided’ gummint, assuming the conversation was grounded on intrinsic American principles rather than Marxist ones, would prevent our Kenyan-Marxist president from continuing his agenda to create an all but enslaved proletariat.
If someone could explain to me how a Catholic, indeed any Christian could, without sin, be a member of a political party that kills its young, I’d appreciate it. If the bishops seek to do God’s will they would excommunicate any Catholic who was a member of the Democrat Party. It’s that ‘Imago Dei’ thing.
And finally, anyone living in this country ‘illegally’ should be arrested and deported. However, Peter’s correct in his critique of the Porchers. The first step to freedom is having the means of existing without standing in a gummint queue, and that means capitalism.
October 31st, 2010 | 7:34 pm
There is a place for an eventual limited amnesty, but only as part of a broader immigration and enforcment (and not merely border enforcement) package. Ramesh Ponurru had some thoughtful (and moderate in the good sense) proposals on this subject in National Review.
Right now the best defenders of a decent welfare state that is consistent with broadly rising living standards are people like Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Yuval Levin and Reihan Salam.
My head tells me eight Republican pick ups in the Senate, but my gut (and an unscientific sense that Senate Republican candidates will tend to outperform their poll numbers) tells me nine.
You are right that Obama’s popularity is holding up fine under very difficult circumstances. A year of gridlock doesn’t really serve conservative goals (though it is the best we can reasonably hope for on the really big things.) The problem is that even a modest recovery coupled with the different turnout model of 2012 and the slow (but steady) demographic transformation of America puts Obama in a good place to win reelection and maybe make up for some of the congressional losses of this year.
The big Republican challenge is to put choices to Obama that force him to either hurt his popularity or agree to move the country in a positive direction on issues like health care (repeal is something they should argue for, but is not enough.) That would require well thought-out policies and a plan for selling them to the broad public. I see no reason to believe that the Republican congressional leadership is up to this challenge. I don’t like their chances in a public relations fight with Obama in a circumstance where the Republicans are seen as having some responsibility.
But we’ll see.
November 2nd, 2010 | 4:27 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Daily Breaking News , Joicelynne Slater. Joicelynne Slater said: Random Predictions and Comments: And in SENATE races: The only changes I see is that the Republican seems more lik… http://bit.ly/a9OWpq [...]
November 2nd, 2010 | 5:25 am
Of course the Catholic XChurch should compromise on abortion. While we’re at it why not go whole hog and become more progressive like the Anglicans, heck why not just adopt Voodoo while we’re become more liberal?
And I agree that all those undocumented jihadies, I mean workers should become citizens. I mean why obey the laws of the USA? Aren’t we all better off when we reward those who brake rigid, inflexible laws?
November 6th, 2010 | 1:24 am
Pete is onto something. There is a distinction between policy conservatives and constitutionalist conservatives. The constitutionalists accuse the pragmatists of lacking an understanding of fundamental principle–usually having something to do with liberty. The policy oriented guys look to what is feasible in terms of facts on the ground–whether real fiscal facts or real political facts. The policy guys argue for what is possible in politics today. The constitutionalists argue for what ought to be done because they recognize that a constitutionalism which is based on the rule of law that one has given oneself requires a deep sense of self restraint. These two trends of conservatism speak past each other to say the least.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact