Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Capitalism and Christian faith (or) Why Obama is a closet(?) capitalist

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

I have started listening to more podcasts while driving. Do not care for much of what passes for “music” these days. And often the times I am driving are when NPR is not broadcasting the news. Plus trying to find ways to feed my mind and my soul.

Downloaded a couple podcasts by Dr Clark Carlton who is assistant professor of philosophy at Tennessee Tech. In his “Faith and Philosophy” podcasts he comments on “matters of faith, philosophy and Orthodoxy”. Today listened to “My Two Cents on Capitalism”.

Interesting and provocative. In a nutshell he tries to explode two – no three – myths about capitalism.

  1. Capitalism does not depend on private property and free markets.
  2. Socialism and progressivism are not (given #1) therefore real alternatives to capitalism.

He argues that much of what we call “capitalism” is not really free market economics and even is the enemy of private property. It is government manipulating markets in order to benefit those whom the government favors. Which often turns into big corporations making huge amounts of money by influencing government policies. (My paraphrase not his.)

“No way” some might say. But think about recent experience. (This next part is me not Carlton.) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Government bailouts of financial companies. Government bailouts of automobile companies. “Green jobs”. “Stimulus packages”. Perhaps even the Federal Reserve. Who loses? Who benefits? The average American?

A dirty little secret is that the Democratic party is the party of big business. Which is not to say the Republican party is much better.

During this podcast Carlton compares how Thomas Jefferson envisioned America as opposed to Alexander Hamilton and further argues that the Jeffersonian vision began to lose ground around 1860. My grasp of American history is very weak so I am not sure how to evaluate what he says. My expertise in history ends around 600 B.C.

The podcast is not long about 10 minutes. You do not have to agree with him. But it is interesting and challenges some of what we call “conservatism”. It also suggests that President Obama is more of a capitalist (properly understood) than many might realize.

Senator Alexander should have quoted the president

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Driving home yesterday listening to National Public Radio “All Things Considered”. Michele Norris interviewing Senator Lamar Alexander concerning the recent push to pass health-care reform in the Senate. She pressed him on the reconciliation issue. Basically “gosh you Republicans did it in the past and are against it now”. Senator Alexander attempted to explain the difference between reconciliation on tax or budget issues versus reconciliation on major policy changes. Ms Norris replied “I guess I still don’t see the difference”. Oh.

Ironically President Obama could have explained it better.

Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning: A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked.

Ding ding ding. That was then Senator Obama in 2005. Ann Althouse assembles similar examples from 2004 2006 and 2007.

Senator Alexander should have just quoted the president. Wonder if Ms Norris would have understood it then.

H/T Opinionated Catholic

Spare us the lame and contradictory (liberal) excuses!

Friday, February 19th, 2010

[This new version of WordPress the "insert media" function does not work. Sorry no illustrations until that gets fixed.]

Man – National Review Online was just swimming with powerful articles this morning. Where to start?

Charles Krauthammer on whether America truly is “ungovernable”. How much have we heard lately about how the “system” is broken? How the federal government is “structurally dysfunctional”?

He reminds us of which recent presidents were quite able to govern and get stuff done even when Congress was controlled by the opposition party.

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills, and an ideological compass in tune with the public’s, the country was indeed governable.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. Krauthammer could also have mentioned George W. Bush and such legislation as “No Child Left Behind” and the Medicare prescription coverage (whether one cares for those two pieces of legislation or not). The Senate is not broken. America is not ungovernable. The problem is not the system. The problem is poor leadership. The system is working perfectly fine.

I also have (such as when listening to National Public Radio) lately heard much kvetching about filibusters and cloture. We cannot believe 41 senators can stop the government! There are two problems with recent calls from the left to change the Senate rules.

The first is the hypocrisy. There are some who defended filibusters when George W. Bush was in office who now call for ending them.

The second is the danger. There are some who call for ending filibusters (or changing the rules for cloture) that no doubt would sing a different tune if the Republicans were in charge and wanted to do something like oh I don’t know privatize Social Security.

(And while we are it note that on other occasions the president brags about how much he and the Congress have accomplished. Look at all the acts that have passed! The only time he complains about how the “system is not working” is when he is talking about the one thing that matters more to him than anything else that he just cannot seem to get. Radically restructuring one sixth of the American economy.)

One of the things that frosts my mug is people who keep changing the rules to suit themselves. And who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Check out also the delightful “Pick an Excuse, Any Excuse” by Jonah Goldberg. During the last few months he has become one of my favorite commentators. One thing that stands out about him is his sense of fairness. He often defends or gives credit to the “opposition” when appropriate. Not one of those “we are always right and they are always wrong” people.

In a nutshell his article explores how when you listen to Democrats these days none of their problems are their fault. Oh wait. One thing is their fault. They have failed to communicate clearly enough to the American people.

That sounds reasonable doesn’t it? “If we just explain what we want to do well enough then everyone will support these policies”. But think about it that for a moment. These people who are so educated and brilliant that they know what is best for us do not know how to explain something adequately.

Well, that’s not entirely right. The Obama administration admits one mistake — and one mistake only. It didn’t explain itself better. In both his State of the Union address and interviews, Obama insisted he got all the policies right. It’s just that the reportedly greatest orator in the history of the republic couldn’t quite make himself clear enough.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. This is similar to the constant “the reason everything is still so awful despite the trillions we have spend is the mess Bush left us”. Which again sounds reasonable. But as Anglican Curmudgeon pointed out a while back implies that they are completely unable to make any difference. “Elect us so we can fix this mess”. And later “the mess is not fixed because someone else made it”.

Speaking of mugs and frost. Why devote space on this website to discuss this? Because as mentioned before one of my “buttons” is when people insult my intelligence. When they say things so stupid so lame so contradictory so contrary to logic and fact and they think I am stupid enough to buy it.

Oh yes. Speaking of. That is precisely what many liberals think. We are we resisting the Obamessiah? We are we resisting a radical restructuring of the American economy? Why we are resisting radical changes to the relationship between the American people and their government? Because we are stupid.

But even this explanation amounts to dodging blame. It’s still code for “you stupid Americans, why can’t you understand I’m right and you’re wrong?”

That’s certainly how Joe Klein, Obama’s de facto press flack at Time magazine, sees things. In a piece titled “Too Dumb to Thrive,” Klein argues that Americans are too stupid to understand how totally awesome the stimulus was. (Time’s Peter Beinart makes a similar argument in a debate with me for Bloggingheads.tv.) What’s funny about this is that if nearly two-thirds of Americans are idiots, that means roughly half of Obama’s voters were idiots, too. His election was once the epitome of American wisdom. Now it seems he was elected despite the stupidity of his supporters.

Some adamantly refuse to accept the possibility that we do get it. The problem is that we do not want it. And the “you are too stupid to realize that what we are doing is for your own good” line may reveal the quintessence of what some call “progressivism”.

Chaim Potok and sermons

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Was listening to NPR in car this morning (yeah yeah I know) and “Writer’s Almanac” with Garrison Keillor came on. It was more interesting than most days.

Ah yes a poem about cleaning up after the dog. Guess who walks the dog in our family? And yes letting everyone see you use the bag is important.

Birthday of Chaim Potok. This got my attention because Potok is one of my favorite writers and I have read most of his books. He is one of the people I draw upon for my theology of the importance of silence. His books also help us understand the Jewish religion. Most of my teachers were Jewish and so I have a special respect and affection for the Jewish religion and people.

Premiere of the opera “Madame Butterfly” by Giacomo Puccini. Did terribly until Puccini made some changes and then presented it again later that year.

And a great quote that every preacher should heed:

A good sermon should be like a woman’s skirt: short enough to arouse interest but long enough to cover the essentials.

Word! From Ronald Knox born this day in 1888.

Today is Ash Wednesday. Today we enter Lent.

REVIEW – Inner reflections/contradictions in "Avatar"

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I almost did not go to see it. Most of the conservative blogs/websites I follow criticized harshly the movie “Avatar” directed by James Cameron. In a nutshell – that it is a silly and predictable leftist anti-American anti-capitalist rehash of “Dances with Wolves”. But some people I know and respect saw it and loved it. Perhaps I should see it and make up my own mind. But what if I hate it? Will James Cameron give me my money back?

Even the harshest critics acknowledge how impressive the film in terms of visuals and effects. In 3D we are as immersed in Pandora as is the protagonist Jake Sully when he lives among the Na’vi. Normally one sees people get up during a movie to visit the restroom or buy a snack or check the time on their cell phones. During “Avatar” hardly anyone moved. Even to stretch or shift in their seats. About two-thirds through the film I noticed my neck was sore from being held in one position for nearly two hours.

So on one level we can appreciate “Avatar” as a powerful visual and cinematic experience. We can also appreciate the creativity and innovation Cameron demonstrated not only in creating this film but in developing new technologies and techniques that such a film requires.

It is precisely this point – “Avatar” as immersive experience – that represents an important counterpoint to the list of conservative(?) criticisms against the film. Conservative critics of “Avatar” focus on what they discern to be its underlying (social-cultural-political) message. (And I will return to this.) That is they criticize the film as ideology. But what about “Avatar” as science-fiction?

My friend and colleague Joshua Villines has penned an original and thoughtful review of “Avatar”. He writes:

In Avatar, James Cameron has chosen to tell a story by creating a fully-immersive, coherent world.  For fans of science fiction, that alone is a huge gift. [emphasis added]

In science-fiction not everything has to add up scientifically. (Most of the time. “Hard” science-fiction which focuses heavily on science would be an exception.) Cameron creates a world and immerses us in it through the visuals cinematography and effects.

Quibble all you like about gravity inconsistencies and weak dialogue, James Cameron has crafted perhaps the most internally-consistent, immersive, extra-terrestrial world ever brought to life on the large screen.  In so doing, he has made the atrocities of ethnocentric consumerism real in a way that a cleverly contrived plot alone would not have.  For threats of mass destruction or genocide to be real to us, they must threaten our home.  This is why the apocalyptic scenes of Terminator are so much more terrifying than the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope.

Read the whole thing here.

So what about those conservative criticisms?

In a nutshell – they are partly correct. Sorry. In fact they might be more correct than people realize.

This week an article by Patrick Goldstein on the Los Angeles Times website asks “Why do conservatives hate the most popular movie in years?” The article – by someone who is not conservative – understands the situation well.

For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that have precious little resonance with Middle America. They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political advocacy films as “Syriana,” ”Milk,” “W.,” “Religulous,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” saying that the movies’ poor performance at the box office was a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that Hollywood is not just interested in making money. Because generally the “high-profile liberal political advocacy films” tank at the box office. And generally the conservative(?) themed films – at least those films that do not ridicule the lifestyles and values of “middle America” – do much better. So why does Hollywood continue to churn out films with a (left/liberal) message that lose money? Probably because they care about the message.

The article understands the situation well – but to a point.

Of course, “Avatar” totally turns this theory on its head.

Um… no. Not only because it is silly to think a single exception turns a general rule on its head. Especially when the article goes on to explain precisely if accidentally how “Avatar” may be an exception that proves the rule.

“It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary spectacle,” says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new conservative film “Kalifornistan.” “Jim Cameron didn’t come out nowhere. He came on the heels of all the left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with their point of view would have the resources to finally make a breakthrough political film. But even though ‘Avatar’ has an incredibly disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture people’s attention. The politics are going right over people’s heads. Its audience isn’t reading the New York Times or the National Review.”

Ding. “The politics are going right over people’s heads”. Audiences are captivated by the spectacle and miss the underlying message.

Or do they?

Some of the comments left in response to Goldstein’s piece are instructive:

It is not so much that the people embrace the ideology of the film, which most certainly leans left, but that the message of anti-America, anti big business, and embrace mother earth themes are not really portrayed in the trailers. It’s not until you are sitting in your seat in the theater that this themes are revealed by then it is too late – the money has been spent.Try getting a refund from the theater because it doesn’t agree with your politics. Even my 76 yr old mom, a life long Democrat, came out and the first thing she said was “Why was that movie so Anti- American?” [emphasis added]

Or this comment which directs our attention toward one of the inner contradictions of the film:

Why is everyone who isn’t in love with this movie automatically “a conservative”? I’m a Democrat and I find it a total sop to American fantasies about how much the world requires our presence. The spectacle of the Na’vi needing an outsider to become their spiritual leader is nothing new or groundbreaking. This movie panders to American culture’s greatest wet dreams about itself.

Ah. Okay. So we have (1) these highly industrialized and technological humans who would despoil a beautiful planet and to make a profit also (2) murder the peaceful non-industrialized non-technological natives who must be led and saved by – pay attention now – (3) a human being who is only able to join them because of some highly advanced technology.

Please note that Goldstein at no point denies what conservative critics of “Avatar” claim is the underlying message of the film. Quite the contrary. Note also a recent ABC News piece on “The Politics of ‘Avatar’”:

For his part, Cameron has been unabashedly open about his political intentions.

The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora, Cameron said in an interview with NBC’s Today show. “It’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”

We have a film that appears to criticize imperialist America and its capitalist economy driven by the military-industrial complex…

That cost $300 million to make… $150 million to market it… that required new technologies… that could only have been funded and made in (more capitalist than not) America… a nation that is largely free and safe thanks to the United States military.

There is a word in the English language for that.

9/11 and America-as-terrorist

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD***

(more…)

Charles Krauthammer – yes healthcare reform but not *this* way

Friday, November 27th, 2009

I have before addressed the contemptible lie that conservatives (and Republicans – the two overlap but are not always the same) are against healthcare reform because they support the “status quo”. Conservatives do support healthcare reform. We like the idea of healthcare coverage for everyone. But we also believe results and reality are at least as important as good intentions.

Once again Charles Krauthammer – dubbed “Critic-in-Chief” by National Review – nails it. He points out what is dreadful about the healthcare reform bill being debated in the Senate and then offers an alternative reform plan in outline:

Worse, they [the hundreds of regulations and boards the healthcare reform bill establishes] are packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes — such as the 118 new boards, commissions and programs — is political expediency. Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There is not even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.

The result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency.

Read the whole thing at Townhall.

I do have mild concern about two points commonly raised by conservatives: (1) tort reform and (2) interstate competition.

Do not misunderstand me. I support them. But I have come across occasional articles by conservatives explaining why they might not help as much as we think. That there is a potential downside to tort reform. And interstate competition might actually make the situation worse. Unfortunately I did not note and bookmark those articles. I vaguely recall coming across them at American Thinker. But I did find this:

“The truth of the story,” producer Sarah Koenig explained, “is a little more complicated, a little less Machiavellian.” In 2001, Aetna was losing $1 million a day. Aetna did two things to turn the company around: It raised premiums, and it pulled out of markets where it did not have a large presence. It turns out, the less competition an insurance company faces in a particular market, the cheaper it can price its products, and the lower premiums are for the insured. Why? Because insurance companies have to wield a lot of clout in order to bargain effectively with the large health-care provider groups in a given area.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online.

I do not entirely understand that last point – perhaps someone else can explain it.

Remember – most conservatives support healthcare reform and healthcare for all Americans. Krauthammer states: “Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative” (emphasis added). Pretty strong language. But conservatives also care about reality and results. If we are going to do something – we need to do it right. In a way that makes things better – not worse.

Hillbuzz – "Thank you President and Mrs Bush"

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

**I have no photo to post or link of George and Laura Bush visiting the families at Fort Hood – because they did not want press coverage. Think about that.***

First – although I voted for President Bush toward the end of his presidency the relentless attacks on him were beginning to rub off on me. What a stumbling bumbling twit of a president so many thought he was. And no the bank bailout and automobile company bailout just before he left office did not help one bit.

Second – many are beginning to appreciate him far more. Not only because of the contrast with the current president. But because the anti-Bush fog generated by the mainstream media and the cultural-political elite is beginning to wear off.

Before Obama was elected I was also beginning to appreciate Bill Clinton more. Oh yeah the character flaws and scandals and he was not conservative. But remember welfare reform? Remember balanced budgets?

Circulating the blogosphere has been this remarkable post by self-described “gay Hillary guys” at Hillbuzz “Thank you former President George W Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush”:

Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush.  We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11.  He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone.  More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.

Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day.  The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day…and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.

As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack.

FOR HOURS.

The Bushes went and met privately with these families for HOURS, hugging them, holding them, comforting them.

If there are any of you out there with any connection at all to the Bushes, we implore you to give them our thanks…you tell them that a bunch of gay Hillary guys in Boystown, Chicago were wrong about the Bushes…and are deeply, deeply sorry for any jokes we told about them in the past, any bad thoughts we had about these good, good people.

….

We hope someday to be able to thank George W. and Laura in person for all they’ve done, and continue to do.  They didn’t have to head to Ft. Hood.  That was not their responsibility.

The Obamas should have done that.

But didn’t.

Wouldn’t.

Thank goodness George W. is still on his watch, with wonderful Laura at his side.

We are blessed as a nation to have these two out there…just as we are blessed to have the Clintons on the job, traveling the world doing the good they do.

Read the whole thing at Hillbuzz. H/T Washington Rebel.

For reasons I do not fully understand the Fort Hood shootings – really a terrorist attack – have made me quite angry. Not so much that the attack happened. But (1) that it was allowed to happen despite the 10 kilometer high red flags Major Hasan was sending up at every opportunity why was this man still in the United States military?!? and (2) the breathtaking intellectual cowardice of so many who in a nutshell said “we must not jump to conclusions – but we know darn well what conclusion we must not jump to yes the only conclusion for which there are mountains of cold hard factual evidence”.

I care about people being able to handle the truth. And when people try to prevent me from handling the truth – I do not respond well.

Update (11/13/09): The British press is beginning to get what the American press will not.

(Do browse the comments. Note especially the fellow who blames nearly everything on former president Bush – fair enough he is entitled to that opinion – but including the drowning of New Orleans. Dang – Bush is responsible even for Katrina!?!)

Addendum (11/13/09): I stand by my remarks concerning President Obama – and would be willing to repeat them. But they have been removed because they were distracting.

"V" is (not really) about Obama administration

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

This will be a short post.

The script for “V” was written during the Bush administration.

So those who think it is about the Obama administration are mistaken. That includes those who think “yeah! sock it to them!” and those who think “what is this paranoid right-wing extremist nonsense?” And there have been many of both.

That does not mean it might not apply. I think it applies rather well.

My wife and I watched it Saturday evening on the computer and it was excellent. Tense. Disturbing. Creepy.

I thought it interesting to note there were two actors who had been in the short lived but excellent science-fiction series “Firefly” – although by the end of the pilot one of them was thoroughly dead. Nice to have you in town.

We look forward to more.

The president is a totalitarian space lizard here to eat us?

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

Sorry about not posting more. Been super busy since the senior pastor of the American church resigned. Don’t get me wrong – in a way I am enjoying my work more than usual. Very similar to what we experienced the last time without a senior pastor.

Hope

From the Chicago Tribune:

Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.

The news media swoons in admiration — one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: “Why don’t you show some respect?!” The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader’s origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: “Embracing change is never easy.”

So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait — did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who’s come here to eat us?

I was so looking forward to the remake of the television series “V”.

I am now barely able to contain my looking forward to the remake of the television series “V”. Those who claim they are here to help us and save us. Those we idolize and onto whom we project our hopes. Turn out to be utter disasters. Worse – they turn out to be out to reduce us to poor miserable slaves of a collectivist state run by the socio-political elite.

Count me among the Resistance.

Victor Davis Hanson – America's return to rationality?

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Victor Hanson has over the last year become one of my favorite commentators. His articles exhibit a strong commitment to logic and reason – wherever that leads. That is precisely why since 2008 I have been deeply concerned for the future sanity and well-being of this nation. Not merely that we elected Barack Obama as president. Hanson explains well how and why that happened. But that our ability to think clearly and speak honestly appears to be in decline.

Let me put it this way. If the Obama Administration were up front and honest about its ideology and agenda – I would still oppose it. If people supported this administration but did so knowing full well and acknowledging openly its agenda and methodology – I would still disagree with them.

But I would do so with vastly more respect.

Witness this administration’s recent Nixonian attempts to marginalize and demonize anyone who questions or challenges it. “Fox is not a news organization”. But MSNBC and CNN are? And yet to their significant credit when the White House attempted to exclude Fox News from interviewing its “corporate pay czar” they said “we refuse to participate unless you include Fox”. Well done.

But there is hope. America is beginning to return to rationality. Victor Hanson begins:

For 30 months the nation has been in the grip of a certain Obama obsession, immune to countervailing facts, unwilling to face reality, and loath to break the spell. But like all trances, the fit is passing, and we the patient are beginning to appreciate how the stupor came upon us, why it lifted, and what its consequences have been.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online.

Hanson concludes his piece with a choice – and a prophecy:

He could imitate Bill Clinton’s 1995 Dick Morris remake. In Obama’s case, that would mean, abroad, cutting out the now laughable apologies for his country, ceasing to court thugs like Ahmadinejad, Chávez, and Putin, keeping some distance from the U.N., and paying closer attention to our allies like Britain and Israel. At home, he could declare victory on his sidetracked agenda and then start over by holding spending in line, curbing the deficit, stopping the lunatic Van Jones–style czar appointments, courting the opposition, and tabling cap-and-trade. I think there is very little chance of any of the above, whatever voters may have thought during the campaign.

Or, instead, Obama could hold the pedal to the floor on the theory that, as a proven ideologue, he must move the country far left before the voters catch on and stop him in his tracks in November 2010. That would mean more of the “gorge the beast” effort to spend and borrow so much that taxes have to soar, and thus redistribution of income will be institutionalized for a generation. He would push liberal proposals no matter how narrow the margin in the Senate. He would keep demonizing Fox News. In Nixonian fashion he might continue to hit the stump, ratcheting up his current “they’re lying” message and energizing his left-wing base by catering to the unions, gays, minorities — and liberal Wall Street special interests.

If he chooses the former, he might well be a more successful version of Bill Clinton given that his appetites are far more in check.

But if, as is likely, he chooses the latter, he will polarize the country in a way not seen since 1968, set back racial relations to the 1960s, do to the reputation of big government what LBJ did from 1964 to 1968, and, in the manner of what Jimmy Carter wrought, turn voters off liberal foreign policy for a generation.

I am not optimistic about President Obama. But I am cautiously hopeful about the American electorate.