If Tocqueville is correct then elections bring out the greatest political passions of the American people. Periodically every two to four years the people are wrought and brought to extremes of anger and vindictiveness and defensiveness the likes of which would shame their otherwise day to day decent and workmanlike business and bourgeois (and in some cases sheer techno-bureaucratic) ethic.

During elections, the demand of high principle all of a sudden finds itself situated in the midst of the most base and baseless tactics of electioneering, fund raising, and vote grabbing. The most important questions–whether they are adequately and beautifully stated or not–are brought to the not dispassionate consideration of the people in terms of competing parties, platforms, and candidates. It is a time when what are considered to be most important issues and concerns are stated in the most exaggerated terms if only because the most important things regarding the government of the community are laid bare for choice. It is a fitting exaggeration.

But is it a choice? If it is a choice, it lasts the mere seconds of pulling the lever, filling in the hole, or pushing the button at the polling place. After all, beyond the marginalia of persuasion, partisans are already ready made, and past memories and present interests are foremost in the mind of the people. Besides a persuasion is more than deliberation about competing means to future aims. It is also a considered judgment made real through longstanding argument and handed down assumptions about the way the world works and ought to work. In an election, one’s understood way is either confirmed or rejected, even if neither candidate perfectly mirrors one’s own personal ideas and interests. After all, it is a question of representation and not in person rule.

Luckily any given election is never entirely over for either party to the dispute because in two to four years hence the people will be able to fight it out again–even as new unforeseen and important circumstances which must be dealt with will inevitably present themselves for the consideration of the community.

Nonetheless, whether past or future, this electoral conflagration is a popular argument made in a truly human manner, and this is something worthy of praise. Speech regarding the common advantage is countered with further such same speech, solemn promises are made by both sides, and various babies are kissed until the day that all of the ballots are counted and the popular favorite wins.

The day after the election and for several months later, the people are somewhat dumbstruck with the aftermath. A policy position and a candidate has been affirmed, or those very same things have been rejected in favor of new ones. In the aftermath, praises and recriminations are made by the partisans of each respective side about their respective campaigns, but little is spoken about the important issues that were so recently divisive regarding the common good. To be sure, the victors carry with them the regnant high of the promises from the campaign glory days, while the most partisan dissenters and losers take two aspirin in order to overcome the severe hangover resulting from investing so much energy in a truly satisfying while it lasted, but ultimately defeated cause.

However, it is needless to say that for both victors and losers the buzz gets killed and the hangover pains subside, and the American people find themselves stuck again with having to govern themselves with their inherited laws and institutions under which and through which they find themselves. They still must make their own political destiny–albeit in the light of eternity–and in the midst of the same unfortunate admixture of chance and choice in which they found themselves before the election.

So what of the role of the intelligent and knowledgeable typing fingers and talking heads in the media who throughout had prided themselves on objectively presenting the case and issues of the election in a way allowing for choice devoid of passion and in a way open to true popular rational deliberation? Oftentimes, these are people who truly care about long term issues and their consequences. They speak of these things over and over regardless of which party controls the Congress or the Presidency. But what happens when it becomes obvious that this group was already in the partisan bag for one candidate in the rhetorical spin that they gave to the campaign issues and stories? For instance, currently we hear a lot that these pundits in their hearts want Obama to win.

In their pride as objective observers of the political scene, some pundits try to rectify that bias–like recently Mark Halperin did in his comments on the way the media covered for possible mistakes the Obama administration made in its dealing with the terrorist attacks which killed four Americans (including the ambassador) in Benghazi, Libya. Halperin (and others too) pointed out that it ought to be a controversy that the general media in its reporting has ignored its own partisanship in favor of Obama in avoiding the reporting of a real scandal. Good for him and his own conscience in stating the obvious. But is Halperin himself being inflamed by electoral passion? Are electoral passions this time calling into question the rectitude of the alleged objectivity that he now must defend in order to save any and all credibility for his profession?

It makes one wonder if the so-called persuadable voters do not consist of the members of media itself. Everyone else is decided it seems, but the media keeps speaking of the undecided. Are they themselves the secret undecided? When major figures like Halperin ask questions about the generally favored candidate (in this case Obama), does that indicate an important change in the electoral polling data? This idea may sound absurd, but consider Christopher Lasch’s remarks on the dubious role and function that the media play in modern campaigns. (h/t Mark T. Mitchell)

I don’t count on the truth of this weird hunch that the members of the media are the secret undecided. But it is surely curious that we rely so much on this class of scribblers and chatterers to make what is important in the questions of our politics. But such is life in 21st century America. I guess I’m one of this class too. At least I have no influence!

Just in case a reader may be confused by my apparent aloofness, I am voting for Romney against Obama for all the intelligent reasons that are put forward on Postmodern Conservative–such as this. I say that for what it’s worth.

This post is my way of giving respect to Carl Scott even while it simultaneously holds Cameron Crowe movies in utter contempt.

Carl tells us that the way of rock is a delusion. However it is apparently a delusion true to one’s own eroticism. Unfortunately the individual fandom of rock discovers itself at the simultaneous same time that the sexual revolution is at its most emphatic in its own truth. In his take of “Almost Famous,” Carl claims that there is no formation of sexual passion. Is it because scientific and secular single mothers raise their sons on their own–sons who are obsessed with rock ‘n roll? It is interesting that Carl doesn’t mention the musical education that the film’s erstwhile rock journalist’s sister leaves for him. Of utmost importance in this education is “Tommy” by The Who–the “deaf, dumb, and blind boy.” In comparison to the band Stillwater, Carl wonders why this band in its mediocrity cannot make music like The Who—or even Simon and Garfunkel’s “Bookends,” another musical LP beyond what the band Stillwater could ever make and that is important to young William’s education.

According to Carl, to be a part of rock ‘n roll one must be a part of the whole of its lifestyle of taking drugs and having sexual relations with whomever. For whatever reason that I don’t understand, Carl thinks the Cameron Crowe movie “Almost Famous” is a movie that provides a way to speak the truth of this demented reality of what it means to be rock ‘n roll. That this movie sucks in too many ways never crosses his mind.

Perhaps this movie sucks in the way that all of Cameron Crowe’s movies suck. Overly sentimental tales about issues that no one could ever give a care—this is the ouerve of a man that makes movies about, at best, kick boxers (“Say Anything”), or at worst about sports agents (“Jerry Maguire”), or even worse a remake of a bad Spanish movie “Abre los Ojos” called “Vanilla Sky”—which had the requisite Tom Cruise overacting scene. At least “Almost Famous” spared the audience such a joke of such a Tom Cruise overacting scene saying “You complete me.”

I respect the depth of the character study in Carl’s analysis of rock music in “Almost Famous,” and even more how the sexual revolution connects to themes of Jane Austen with the harmonies of the Beach Boys in this particular Cameron Crowe movie of “Almost Famous.”. However, at the end of the day, the defiling of the young man journalist (William) is not that big a deal. It surely wasn’t rock ‘n roll, and insofar as it had ethical connotations, it was already corrupted by the jackassery of what was considered to be the spirit of rock ‘n roll. Remember, Penny goes to Morocco, where she will smoke lots of opianated hashish, all the while having soul communions with strangers overlooking empty town squares and ports.

But “Almost Famous” is such a bad movie. My ending for for Penny Lane–drugged out and far away from home in an exotic locale–is more interesting than anything than Cameron Crowe ever did.

If one wants to watch “bad movies,” then one ought to watch Brian De Palma’s “Dressed to Kill,” “Blow Out,” or “Body Double.” They are much more interesting for the same themes that Carl emphasizes without the sentimentality that leaves one with nothing but shameful sentimentality. Regarding themes of innocence and the need for education in a tradition, a tradition that is worthwhile preserving, all the while questioning beyond what is conventional De Palma is superior to the the trivialities of Cameron Crowe.

BTW—De Palma deliberately eschews rock ‘n roll music as a soundtrack in his movies (he uses electronic pop by Pino Donaggio in several films)—that is he eschews it until and unless he wants to spoof a popular song like “Relax” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood, and then he uses Donaggio again.

In his post, Carl made me think of The Kinks song, “Rock & Roll Fantasy.” Enjoy.

In defense of Carl and against my black bile, let me suggest another Kinks song–Catch Me Now I’m Falling.

So I may be a voice of negativism and cynicism. So be it.

I find the weepy RNC convention in its appeals to compassion to be silly. The very thing they lambast about so-called bleeding heart liberals, they return in tenfold with oceans of tears. Since when did American exceptionalism become the equivalent of a Charles Finney frontier revival where hell didn’t exist and there was no worry bench—let alone frontier? It became this when we all realized we could cry together with no frontier other than our own wonderful imagination of the endless promise of America. Unless you want to become a sci-fi geek, you may as well accept the fact that the “final frontier” is simply something that can be boldly pursued only in one’s own solipsistic comic book version of the fate of the America.

It seems that Hollywood has made so many comic book/super hero movies in the last two decades or so that it has had a deleterious effect on the public imagination. We may as well play Xbox in 3D than have any politics.

No matter how passionately you may hold it (pathos)—no matter how sound your argument is (logos)—no matter how respectable a person you are (ethos), this weepy argument about a comic book America is unpersuasive to the typical a****le who will never disappear despite one’s good intentions. Or let’s not say a****le, but the person who remains skeptical of such good times backslapping.

As long as conventional political rhetoric plays the cry me a river feel goodism, or no matter how much it also plays the apocalyptic this the end of the world trope, it will only excite deep passions, and those passions will only encourage the “we are all doomed unless we hold hands and cry” and let’s get high variety. The corollary is that such rhetoric will have the perennial sober peanut gallery. But that gallery will remain peanuts with too few shells to shuck in defense of good government.

At the RNC convention, Paul Ryan’s near choke up in his salute to his mother, and Romney’s near sobbing about his parents and wife and children were more than evident. Yes, both barely held back tears, but at worst they projected such sentimentality onto the audience. Apparently Romney’s and Ryan’s sincere feelings must be ours as an audience, and if we do not tear up, then there is something wrong with us. This sentimentalism is problematic. In my experience, some of the most thoughtful and educated drunks have also made the best sentimentalists. Is Romney a so-called dry drunk, and Ryan playing to a stereotype of (Irish?) Catholics? Drunks both with regard to passion, and with no “Nocturnal Council” to make their drunkenness speak to some sort of truth, let alone justice, the RNC leaves us with nothing other than used tissues and a tawdry shame the next morning.

In its making all things good with Mitt’s father’s daily roses on the next day’s bedstand, Romney’s speech might as well have been Joel Osteen’s message which told you that in America all things are possible simply because you wish them to be and you believe in God. I too hope this is the case, but I have my doubts. If this is sum and substance of political speech, then it seems nobody knows what the hell they are talking about.

On the other hand, in his typical either/or rhetoric of false choices, President Obama will simply talk about hope (for what?) and change (to what?). He will say, “They (the Republicans?) want you to believe that the individual can drink a Slurpee, all the while giving tax breaks to the rich, and you meanwhile won’t get a ‘brain freeze.’” Obama says, “I stand for the Hoover Dam and the moon landing.” He continues, “They want you to believe that less regulations of the banking industry will help grow the economy.” President Obama replies, “Like Baudrillard, I’m gonna build the simulacrum of the Golden Gate Bridge in your mind.” In his rhetoric, Obama truly offers nothing. They say… “cliché,” I offer…”even more dangerous cliché.”

Nonetheless, neither side apparently ever suffers if they have the right conviction—because conviction, no matter how empty, matters.

Suffering is not exclusive to economic hardship and cancer, but it is something we all endure and need to endure. Politically speaking, this endurance unfortunately leads to resentment which still ought to be exploited in a healthy way. No matter how bad things get, in America, all things are possible. But isn’t one definition of madness the belief that all things are possible for one’s self? Resentment is best when channeled amongst the split personality of multiple media for some partisan purpose.

I liked Clint Eastwood’s critique of Oprah’s weepiness, but then the RNC’s entire presentation prior to that was all about weepiness. The personalized and “humanized” stories—where we learned that Mitt helped out individuals with children who died and were sick and all that sort of stuff—was enough, despite my cynical resistance, to elicit a moist and salty discharge from the tear ducts near my eyes.

Clint spoke against the venality of lawyers and politicians, and then Romney spoke shortly thereafter.

Regardless of the manifest contradictions, I stood with Clint against such weepiness. In his evident confusion, Clint’s performance was enough for me to think the Republicans were desperate to win an office they evidently, in the first place, couldn’t articulate why they should have it and what they would do with it once they won it. Clint may have done more harm than good for Romney’s case in some sort of day to day polling sense, but on the other hand, he spoke to the confusion and near madness that is today’s politics.

After all, Clint’s stated policy preferences—e.g., bring home all troops but keep Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo alive because we have spent so much money on it—reflected the seeming impossibility of being consistent today.

Despite of all this Eastwooding, I like the pundits who say that, in this election, we need to make a serious case based on the recent studies of various expert economists. We need a debate between two versions of policy wonkery. Still, it is mistake to think that politics can be won simply with esprit de geometrie over l’esprit de finesse. If the pundit forgets finesse, the he shows himself as wall-eyed. Unfortunately Romney is all geometrie, and his weepy personal sentimentalism didn’t show finesse but mere emotional effusion.

So the debate is confused over high principle rightly stated and low technocracy defended with expert data. What’s up? First of all, expert facility in the weeds of policy is a pure campaign gimmick, no matter how intelligently it is presented. It provides the charm of competence without any basis from the public to make an informed decision. It is like what many people say—they “believe” in science.

Secondly, no matter how much refinement and enlargement there is, the constitutional offices will limit expert excellence in favor of what a constitutional majority ultimately finds palatable. Representatives may defend and promote the science they believe is truth despite public opinion polls and fact checkers, but they often don’t know what the science teaches for the simple reason that they are not scientists. Even when they do act in the name of anonymous facts like rising seas and damaged planets, they rightly choose for human beings as individuals and families over the nameless facts of science.

However–

If you keep focusing on policy, and no matter how smart you are, you are asking for war. If you get 3% persuadables for your case to make 50% + 1, you are still legislating for the whole, and 50% – 1 will continue disagree—and resist. This is not persuasion, even if the “auxiliary precautions” are designed to keep the policy wonks in their place. You may say the fact of the fiscal unsustainabilty of Medicare must be cared for, and moreover you say that the demographic crisis where there are too many retirees in relation to the number of workers, makes reform necessary. But these facts alone do not tell us how we ought to act, and there is a serious division on this point. You may want to rely on the youth, but I suspect that if you do this you will only make vulnerable populations more vulnerable.

Those youth are truly Randians and Paulistas because they have been educated in the general political culture. This type of student has never had a liberal education, but he is intelligent in America. He has no idea other than what he hears online, on television and on radio. He likes intellectuals like Paul and Rand. For instance, Rand is revolutionary, and an atheist, and an ontological egoist. So is the general political culture—our most persuasive teacher to our most alienated students. Rand tells us that individuals of great talent and ambition need not hold any gratitude for others past and present in order to acknowledge and fulfill their deepest longings for power as proof own their own excellence. But then again, when I recently told my students about an important event happened in Egypt last year, they were confused because the Passover and the sacrificing of the first born happened thousands of years ago.

In other words there is a lot of ignorance.

I would say that those whose adherence to the mathematical rationality of policy is the end all and be all of answering our needs must also recognize the forms and formalities of the constitutional liberal democracy under which we live. You may say that we have always manipulated constitutionalism for policy ends, but this is naïve regarding the powers that the constitution gives to the offices. Indeed, ambition often counteracts ambition.

The founders were not Habermas who views public debate as one where each and every individual and group puts their two cents into the discussion for a distortion free resolution shorn of all partisanship. Partisans in favor of talking about policy and avoiding what they call superfluous rhetoric need to remember that while there may be facts, no one has a monopoly on the truth.

Believe it or not, I understand realities. I’m voting for Romney even if I think politics in the States is nutty.

So I discovered this guy Phil J. Gray while looking for a Bob Dylan song on YouTube. I’m actually glad that his version of Dylan’s “Clothes Line Saga” was all that I found because I learned of his particular grievance regarding Parking-Eye in the United Kingdom. This omniscient enforcement of parking regulation led to him having to pay 90 to 120 pounds in parking fees. Given his parking offense, he had received several versions of threatening letters in various colored paper demanding payment. But rather than knuckle under, Mr. Gray decided to write a letter of complaint to Right Honorable Messrs. David Cameron and Nick Clegg for some sort of redress. He also posted his case on You Tube.

I wish him well in his endeavor (or should it be endeavour?).

Of course, this is a minor case, as Mr. Gray himself admits. But what is the limit to how much one must pay for an ordinary oversight in parking one’s car? Mr. Gray was simply trying to further his “Candlelight Peace Tour” which was overshadowed by the 2012 Olympic torch tour. He just wants to know why he should be required pay so much money for such a minor offense, and implied in his case is why the Coca-Cola sponsored Olympic torch got such preference over his own tour.

I like this man’s style and nerve—even if, as he himself seems to realize his case is not that serious (e.g., he keeps referring to Tony Blair instead of Cameron and Clegg). And of course, he jumped a few bounds from the local to the general in tying his case to the Prime Minister, but he mentions his own member of Parliament at the end. But don’t all complaints eventually implicate the legitimacy of those who claim rule from the top?

A parking ticket? Get over it! But then again, doesn’t Mr. Gray have a point?

In selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate Romney took the bold path today. He also picked knowledge and competence. Ryan’s various budgets and plans will now become the central campaign issue, and in a way Obama gets his election of “choice.” But Ryan will be able to keep the president’s record up front too. Today he called Obama’s polices a failure. He spoke of the failure of Obama’s policies as resulting in “debt, doubt and despair.” The Romney campaign needs to be persistent in emphasizing facts like increasing debt, slow economic growth, high unemployment, and that there has been no budget passed during the Obama administration. So the campaign is still a “referendum” on Obama too, and a warning of where continuing on this path would lead.

Here is a taste of some speeches Paul Ryan has given in the last year and a half or so at Heritage, CPAC, Georgetown, and the Ronald Reagan Foundation. In these speeches, he indeed follows the advice of Barney Frank that Pete mentioned—he sticks to what he knows, budgets and entitlements.

Given the occasion, there are interesting nuances in Ryan’s rhetoric. I would especially point out the Georgetown speech where he outlines his understanding of social justice because it cuts against the grain of his supposed “leave everyone except the wealthy on their own” ideology. After all, we had seen that he wants to roll grandma in her wheelchair off a cliff. I’m surprised that ad didn’t depict his body double with a well-read copy of Atlas Shrugged in his suit pocket.

Today Ryan said that the American people want and need to hear the truth about our looming fiscal crisis, but this will be answered with the charge of unfairly favoring the wealthy few, coupled with all kinds of “mediscare” ads. Peter notes that this is indeed scary stuff. I guess we’ll see how much truth is not too scary this November.

Ryan mentioned something today that he regularly mentions—that our rights come from nature and God and not from government. This gives the Romney campaign an element of high principle that it had been lacking in its technocratic emphasis on how Romney knows how to fix things.

But the skeptics have already weighed in on whether or not Ryan’s political talent and conviction will be wasted with its addition to the ticket. On Facebook, Bruce Bartlett quoted Eli Lake as follows: “The worst that can happen to Paul Ryan is that the ticket wins. Then Ryan–who has won a loyal following as the principled budget cutter–will have to line up behind Romney budgets. This is kind of like putting Eddie Van Halen in REO Speedwagon. Yes it makes REO Speedwagon rock a lot harder, but it totally ruins Van Halen.”

1. I can’t say who would be best for Romney’s Veep pick, but Pete has persuaded me about the problems a Ryan pick would pose. But then on the other hand, I think Romney needs to go bold, and Ryan would be bold. Unfortunately such boldness would bog the campaign down to defending Ryan’s various plans from the media onslaught.

McDonnell is good for his serious knowledge and competence, but that pick would exhibit little boldness. Jindal would be a little better on the boldness point, plus he has the same seriousness as McDonnell. However, Jindal does not seem to be getting much traction in the general Veepstakes chatter. Petraeus would be excellent for both boldness and seriousness, but as Pete noted, does anyone know how well versed he is on the pressing domestic issues? And does he really want to be Vice-President?

So without picking the name I think would be best, I’ll simply point to this Mark Halperin piece which gives some useful tips for figuring out who the pick will be. His last point, not really a tip (No. 10), is worthwhile remembering—

“Given modern technology, the length and depth of preparation, and the ethos of the Obama campaign, Romney’s pick will be hit harder and faster than any selection ever.”

2. In one of Carl’s previous Songbook posts he mentioned that he might write something on Rock Docs or Rockumentaries. I thought I would give his research a boost if he ever chooses to do this post. Here is a link to twenty rock documentaries that can be viewed in their entirety on You Tube.

Not every movie on the list is officially a Rock Doc. Some of them are simply movies featuring live performances, such as the long forgotten Urgh! A Music War which features the Police, Wall of Voodoo, XTC, Dead Kennedys, X, The Cramps, Gang of Four, The Fleshtones. and several other ‘80s bands. That one is a blast from the past!

At any rate, this research tip is an attempt to spur Carl to write something about rock documentaries.

UPDATE: Having spent the evening watching Urgh! A Music War, I must comment on the excellenece of the following performances I didn’t mention before: Echo and the Bunnymen, the GoGos, Joan Jett, Steel Pulse, Gary Numan, and as a Facebook friend reminded me, the essential weirdness of Klaus Nomi.

It is of interest that the subtitle to this film refers to war. It is no “moral equivalent of war,” but for a generation that had “known no war” as Pete Townsend put it (i.e., war in terms of a WWII type war), the tensions between these bands, their styles of music, and their fan bases often entailed an antagonism bordering on war.

But a war for what? One’s own subculture? There seems to be a serious diminishment here. Ben Folds has a personalized emo take on this phenomenon–Missing the War.

Maybe the blonde guy with the mustache in the crowd that the film kept showing could provide the answer in terms of what experience shows.

Thought I’d provide an update to an earlier post. Ted Cruz handily defeated David Dewhurst in the Texas Senate Republican runoff. Barring extraordinary circumstance, he is sure to beat Democratic nominee Paul Sadler in November.

The national version of this story was that Cruz was a Tea Party insurgent who stuck it to the establishment. After all, he had Sarah Palin’s support, and she said he was going to be another maverick against the well-known and respected politicians of the Texas “establishment.” What does Sarah Palin know of Texas politics? Nothing as far as I can see. But she is popular and she is smart enough to eat at Chick-fil-A while in state.

The truth is that Cruz and Dewhurst shared many of the same conservative positions. It is also true that Cruz received money and support from national Tea Party “institutions” during the runoff (i.e., Jim DeMint’s Senate and FreedomWorks’ campaign funds), but Cruz–a Harvard Law grad who clerked for Rehnquist and who won the admiration of both National Review and George Will—is not your typical Tea Partier.

In the runoff, anti-establishmentarianism surely played a part, but so did the endless barrage of Dewhurst’s ads presenting Cruz as Satan’s liege. Dewhurst spent nearly $17 million on the most ridiculous ads which were played on TV over and over again. This wasn’t merely an example of the diminishing returns of campaign negativity, but rather—after Texas Republicans actually heard Cruz speak for himself—it was a negative reaction to Dewhurst’s excessive and downright silly ad campaign. Dewhurst should remember the adage “who’s laughing now?” because he spent millions in attacking Cruz, all the while hoping that his own apparent name recognition (as Lt. Governor?) would hold the day. In his ads, Dewhurst presented the Cruz candidacy as if it were the young body and soul of Regan MacNeill in need of an exorcism. This sounds absurd and exaggerated, but Dewhurst’s campaign against Cruz became as laughable as Linda Blair’s spinning head spewing Campbell’s green pea soup.

I should add that as I drove around in my car I never saw any street signs which said “Vote for Dewhurst,” but I saw plenty of signs attacking Cruz. To me, this was an oddity for street sign electioneering–attack signs.

So I don’t think that Cruz’s victory is to be explained simply as some sort of “grass roots” victory. It also had to do with Cruz’s excellent credentials and Dewhurst’s bad taste. If he had only watched The Exorcist a few more times, Dewhurst might have realized that the detective in that movie was an avid connoisseur of movies. The detective would have told Dewhurst that shock can only go so far, eventually you need to show ads providing a reason why anyone should vote for you in the first place. Instead, Dewhurst got sidetracked into thinking his name alone could defeat the evil demon.

Luckily Cruz is the furthest thing from such a demon—instead he appears to be an accomplished, articulate, competent and decent man. Let’s hope he makes a good senator.

UPDATE: It is nice to know that the story emphasis and tone of my post about Ted Cruz is in near opposition to the version given in the New York Times. If only those journalists lived in Texas!

So Mitt Romney has said some stupid nonsense regarding the London Olympics. Everyone who reads the London papers or the Drudge Report knows that the London Olympics have their problems. Mitt Romney, putative Republican nominee, spoke what had been commonplace in the headlines, and apparently now he needs to suffer. Doesn’t everyone know that organizing the winter Olympics in a backwoods like Utah is nothing like organizing an Olympics in a major cosmopolitan center like London? After all, London is a place that can endlessly play The Clash song “London Calling,” and this of itself will show its importance. There is no “Utah Calling” as equivalence. If you have problems, then you can always pull out your ace in the hole, viz. Sir Paul McCartney.

The President, in another story, tells us that business owners didn’t build it themselves, but someone else did. Your store was built next to the publicly funded highway. Ebay needed Al Gore to invent the information highway in the first place for it to become a viable business. The President now must suffer criticism regarding what the context was regarding the meaning of “you didn’t build that”. He says he is for the middle class, and that is why he wants to tax incomes above $250K—a tax in the name of the middle class. There are a lot of smart and hard working people out there he tells us, and none of them did it for themselves. Consequently, the President just wants to increase the taxes of that group who, regardless of intelligence and hard work, have made enough money by which they should be taxed more. To be fair, he only wants to raise the highest tax rates back to the Clinton era 39% from Bush era 35% cuts.

If the President really means what he says about the fair share of the rich, then why not a 90% tax rate? There is no “London Calling” here, but let me suggest The Jam’s “That’s Entertainment,” because this tax won’t have much to do with the questionable sustainability of the public fisc. Regarding public funds, we’re getting older and broker as we speak in terms of public obligations toward pensions (and other expenses), and meanwhile our bridges and electric grids rot. Of course, we also have wars in Afghanistan and Iraq abroad. In this light, one might as well bring up bases in So. Korea and Germany too (and elsewhere). It all costs money if you are so concerned about the bottom line.

Whether it is the stupidity of the London Olympics or the stupidity of current tax policy in the U.S.A., it seems that in public speech, whatever one says is held up to the most exacting of standards. For instance, I can say something in order to start a fight—why else would I want write something? (but I can think of a few others)—and that thing I say gets examined and criticized six sides sameways. This is not entirely true in these haunts of Postmodern Conservative, but even here the slightest criticism can mean the greatest of differences. Nonetheless, on a blog like this, we know that we can throw ideas out there to be tossed and kicked around. These ideas can be considered, even as we know our own commitments in defense of what is important. If such serious ideas appear in the form of casual speech, then perhaps that is the way that ideas get examined and analyzed on a blog in the first place. In this way, a blog is not a political speech or a peer reviewed academic journal. It is a casual way in which ideas can be presented in a conversation that allows for a benign indifference if need be. Sometimes people need to just let it loose in speech without being held accountable for each and every nuance and consequence of what they mean.

In my view, Romney and Obama’s gaffes are open game for deep analysis, but that analysis ought to likewise be given the benefit of the doubt regarding context and nuance. When I have conversations about important things with my friends, I think I say intelligent things, but then I speak loosely. I probably sound like an a**hole.

This post is in fact a precis in defense of saying whatever the hell I want to. Unfortunately, I have no idea of what I could say that would be truly of interest to anyone else.

Carl’s comments regarding Mary Eberstadt’s new book Adam and Eve After the Pill got me wondering. Was this book truly a game changer in the debate regarding the consequences of the sexual revolution (and “full modernity” as he puts it) or not? So I went out and bought the book and read it. In answer to that question I have to say no.

Her argument is backed up with much evidence, but the book makes a case that she had already made in previously published articles in First Things and Policy Review. So as far as game changing went, I was already familiar with the gist of her argument.

I largely agree with her argument, but I’m not sure it is a game changer in the cultural war. That is, it is not a game changer unless one starts to look beneath the surface of her overall case. Looking at all of her articles as they are compiled in the terms one book, you start to think of connections that had not been there before. You begin to see things between the lines, as it were.

I think such a reading is fair due to the fact that the book is highly rhetorical. Eberstadt relies on a method of leading you into her argument with a suppositional case that you initially think is about one thing, but that ends up about being another. You think she is talking about today and the consequences of the sexual revolution—after all this is the book’s topic—but she ends up talking about communism and the cold war, current dietary restrictions and food obsessions, and the historically prior widespread popular acceptance of smoking tobacco (primarily cigarettes).

Eberstadt ends up making strange connections—connections which show moral homologies and trans-valuations between previously held moral standards of conduct, and currently accepted codes. No doubt, she did this in her previous articles. She compared the communist revolution and reactions to it with the sexual revolution and similar reactions. She described opposing attitudes toward both food and sex in the 1950s and the 2000s. She made an analogy between tobacco use in the past and the consumption of pornography in the present. But when these ideas are presented together as a whole, the reader starts to see a larger account of what just might ail us beneath the surface of the problems of the pill and the sexual revolution—as substantial as those problems and their consequences are.

Eberstadt presents a problem of human desire in both its male and female modes—perhaps even in a desire for the infinite. Moreover, she shows the way in which there can be well-formed and mal-formed versions that such desire can take in the light of its particularly sexed or gendered nature. Sexed and gendered nature is an important part of her case. Much of this is unstated, but given what on the surface seem to be strange corollaries—say, that between tobacco and pornography—the reader can only be left with further questions in this regard. What is it that one desires that can give one completion?

Without answering that question Eberstadt outlines the social science data that consequentially suggests a current and general confusion and unhappiness in life, and especially in the lives of men and women, and how they relate to one another. Rampant loneliness, high divorce rates, infidelity, alcoholism, drug abuse, addiction to pornography, and general neuroses and psychoses seem to lead to behavior that entails personal and social self-destruction. It is connected to the sexual revolution, and it is connected to a human desire in terms of a freedom that knows no bounds other than that which is assigned by the conventions of the day. Eberstadt hopes that the data collected through decades of social science research will lead to a change in behavior, but I’m not so sure that is the case. The facts she relates are open to interpretation, and one must share her dismay at the psycho-social disorder that such practices have led us in order to seek a change. And we still must wonder a change for what?

Throughout the book, Eberstadt speaks of the Kantian Categorical Imperative, and she shows how attitudes toward activity that could be made universal for all can change over time. But this insistence on Kantian morality, to my mind, shows a thinness regarding the foundation of ethics not only when it moves to an abstraction beyond settled emotive, historical and cultural practices, whether they be for better or worse. It is also thin in its reliance upon a morality understood as a free and rational assent to agreed upon rules, and therefore a morality that does not take into account the unruly—and heteronomous—nature of eros, let alone thumos. A Kantian morality eschews any teleology as being base eudaimonism, so Eberstadt likewise remains silent regarding any ends of human action.

This may sound like a simplistic reiteration of Alasdair MacIntyre’s critique of modern morality, and if so, so be it. However, I simply wanted to point to the nature of human eros—or desire—as presented in Plato’s Symposium with an addendum of the Epicurean notion of pleasure. In this case, desire is a lack, and perhaps a fundamental lack. As such, eros is painful—only to be relieved through satisfaction and potential pleasure. But what ultimately satisfies? Convention—whether traditional or libertine—is established to give form and shape to such desire. It also attempts to answer the question of what is ultimate, but it can never quite get at the true meaning and purpose of the whole. It is always conventional. Such is the partisan nature of living in a political community.

Eberstadt points out that the conventions of modern libertinism lead to a whole host of social and personal disorders, and she has plenty of evidence to back her claim up, but she provides no account of what would truly satisfy. Maybe Kant is right, and we should rely on the formal autonomy of rational agents who see each other as ends in themselves. However, when you connect that formal intent to sexual desire such an account of morality seems lacking to me. If sexual desire must act in conformity to a universal maxim in a Categorical Imperative, it is always going to have a hard time seeing action has having any purpose beyond itself. And sex always implies such a purpose in procreation and its attendant institutions of family and political community. Eberstadt wants the facts of social science to conform to a Kantian rule, but she never says what the purpose is. That purpose has to be read between the lines.

Let me just mention Eberstadt’s subtle analogy between attitudes toward sex and food. According to her book, in the 1950s a woman would have been libertarian regarding food choices and puritanical regarding sexual activity. Her grand-daughter in the 2000s, on the other hand, holds opposite judgments regarding these things. This is true to my memory and experience. But what does it mean?

Hunger for sex and food moves the soul to nourish the body. In an empirical observation of human activity and life, a la Hobbes, desire seems to know no end other than death. It shows itself as power seeking after power that only ends in death. As death, it is limited for each, but limitless as a species. But Aristotle also knew that human beings were the most unruly and dangerous of all animals outside of convention, especially with regard to food and sex. He too claims that these things can be taken in an unlimited manner, even if such behavior leads to self-destruction. However, unlike Hobbes, Aristotle posited the human being was a political animal, an animal which finds its perfection—or telos—in the context of a well-ordered city. St. Augustine too spoke of infinite human desire, which is itself a kind of pain. Be he unlike Hobbes or Aristotle, claimed that “my” heart is restless until it rests in “you”—the personal God revealed in the personal relation of a triune God. But this revelation also provided an end, viz. personal salvation and eternal life.

For all my critique of popular Kantianism, let me say that Eberstadt’s book is really good. With less panache, but with equal force and even further empirical social science evidence, her method resembles Roland Barthes’ Mythologies in its outlines of the deep structure of the contemporary beliefs and practices surrounding our most deeply held moral codes about human sexual desire—or should I say eros. And she does it all with a moral intent beyond the value-free conventions of most contemporary social science. She outlines a structural semiology of sexual morals which connects “is” and “ought,” in order to submit facts to a candid world understood in the light of a well understood grasp of seemingly self evident moral truths.

To my mind, however, a game changer in the cultural debate would have to address eros and its completion—or at least the alternative claims for its completion. But then, perhaps I’m asking too much of contemporary debate and discourse. I admit I could never be as brilliant as Mary Eberstadt is in this book.

UPDATE: Let me add a partisan jab at President Obama. Eberstadt has this to say about the pervasive acceptance of pornography: “What seems unremarkable today–accepting pornography industry money for one’s charity, say…” may be a passing delusion. The porn industry “may yet [come] to see their efforts reviled by a future public–just as many people who once aided the tobacco industry, whether paid or not, are seen with our critical eyes today.” The Weekly Standard reports on this event in the Obama campaign.

As you all probably know there is a runoff election for the Republican nomination in the Texas Senate race to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison. Well tonight the two candidates—sitting Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz—sat down for a debate moderated by two local Dallas television reporters. Come November one of them will run against the Democratic runoff winner—in a race between former state Rep. Paul Sadler and Grady Yarbrough (most think Sadler will easily win).

The GOP runoff has turned out to be much closer than had been expected—with polls from each camp (in the last two weeks or so) claiming that their man holds a lead over the other. This runoff has garnered a lot of statewide and national attention and money—something close to $25 million has been spent on the election, with Dewhurst spending nearly $17 million. This expenditure is obvious in Texas, as for months both before the primary and now during the runoff, TV viewers have been barraged with many Dewhurst ads insinuating that Cruz, a former state solicitor general now in private practice, had done legal work for a Chinese client who had allegedly sent jobs overseas and hurt workers here at home. Dewhurst is taking a play from Obama against Romney in order to strike a hit.

From the beginning, the race was pretty ugly, but Cruz—both a Tea Party and Washington pundit favorite—was nonetheless able to force a runoff against the long time Texas politician and multi-millionaire businessman. In the runoff Cruz has raised enough money to fire back at Dewhurst with ads claiming that he supported a state payroll tax and a guest worker program.

The debate was interesting, but the young and politically inexperienced Cruz obviously won the night (by my lights). Still, one wonders if this matters, because as the moderator pointed out, on most of the issues Dewhurst and Cruz share similar positions. They both claim to be fiscal conservatives who are strong on defense, wish to secure the border with Mexico, and are in favor of repealing Obamacare. Dewhurst has the name recognition, but tonight it was the personal differences that seemed to matter.

In the debate Cruz appeared to be ready to discuss the issues and defend himself against Dewhurst’s attacks, while Dewhurst fumbled for answers a few times, and seemed to be somewhat shocked that, as an “establishment” favorite, he had been put in the position to argue for his apparent inevitable nomination. Cruz pinned Dewhurst down on the guest worker program issue, at one point alleging the Lt. Governor had instructed state workers to remove a speech he had once given in favor of the policy from the Lt. Governor’s official website. Dewhurst never answered whether or not he ever advocated for a guest worker program, and he denied that he instructed state employees to remove his speech. However, he claimed that if you wrote the Lt. Governor’s office, you could be provided with a transcript of the speech. Amazing!

Dewhurst hammered Cruz on his legal support for the Chinese tire company, but this time Cruz himself pulled a play from Dewhurst’s own Obama play against Romney—or was it a Newt Gingrich play?—insinuating that Dewhurst had his own money personally invested in China and that this might constitute some sort of conflict of interest. Dewhurst said he didn’t know the answer because his money was in a blind trust, and Cruz said that this lack of transparency raised the question of where his money might be invested. Once again, but for different reasons—Amazing!

It seems to me that if anyone were actually watching this debate tonight—meaning if any Texas conservatives and Republicans were watching—then Cruz would be the hands down favorite. He’s smart, and he doesn’t seem too concerned to curry favor with the Texas political “establishment.” However, Dewhurst has strong support. He has aired ads featuring Mike Huckabee in support, and after this evening’s debate he got former Dallas mayor (and former Republican Senate candidate) Tom Leppert’s endorsement. He already had Rick Perry’s support.

So this race will be close—between a well-respected politician and a smart conservative upstart.

The closing bit of the debate was enlightening—the moderator asked whether either candidate would be a senator like Sen. Hutchison who he claimed brought home the bacon and looked out for Texas. Neither candidate answered entirely in the affirmative. Dewhurst said that, as senator, he would need to look toward the national interest. Cruz struck a balance between the state and the nation, but also ultimately spoke in terms of what was good for the nation.

As fiscal conservatives, they both argued that national insolvency works to the detriment of Texas. Rather than viewing the role of a senator as an agent or delegate, they were willing to speak in terms of representation that refined and enlarged, as it were, the opinions, passions and—since this was both moderators’ primary concern throughout the debate—INTERESTS of their constituents.

I guess the moderators helped to foreshadow the debate in the general election. The Democratic candidate, in order to protect the economic well being of Texans, will bring home the bacon a la Sen. Hutchison. Dewhurst or Cruz, on the other hand, will speak of the looming debt crisis and the need to get the nation’s fiscal house in order. That would be best for Texas they both say.

This debate seems to be a Texas-sized (meaning in this case, micro) version of our more national issues and concerns. As such, it should continue to attract national attention, at least if Obama really thinks he has a chance in Texas. Given what I anecdotally know, the interest will subside once the Republican nominee is decided. Nonetheless, the debate between Dewhurst, a conventional Republican, and Cruz–who I had never heard of until National Review ran a cover story on him that at first sight I thought was about the actor Bill Murray–is of both interest and importance.

Perhaps Cruz’s undeniable intelligence and rhetorical skills could keep this race in the national spotlight, even if, should he win the runoff (as he ought to), he were running as a Republican in Texas.