Towards A Good Samaritan World

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Three cheers for the Senate.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

My latest article at Tech Central Station, a response to the Bush speech, got the title "Living the Creed." Money quote:

The sequel to the complacent 1950s was the volatile, angst-ridden 1960s, when idealists took center stage and ripped the national consensus apart. It's happening again.


This paragraph made people mad:

Bush won't reunite the GOP, because many people on the right are foaming at the mouth that these swarthy Spanish speakers who mow their lawns and clean the restrooms at the office may soon be their fellow-citizens, their equals. It is this same kind of visceral opposition that Lyndon Johnson evoked when he demanded that white Americans relinquish their claims to superiority over black Americans. Immigration benefits us economically. Immigrant workers fill gaps in the labor market and are a key ingredient in low-inflation economic growth. They make native-born American citizens a bit richer. But that's less important than keeping the club exclusive.


I sort of semi-apologized to one reader but the more punditry I read, the more the words seem justified. As much as I'm disgusted by the Democrats, it will be BEAUTIFUL if the House Republicans go down in flames this fall for their immigration stance.

Joe Klein writes that the dark-side Republicans are blowing the Republicans' chance to make the GOP a majority party for a generation. But maybe not. There's a battle for the soul of the Republican Party underway: Bush vs. Sensenbrenner and Tom Tancredo. Fight, Bush, fight!

Monday, May 08, 2006

REPUBLICANS FOR SENATE, DEMOCRATS FOR THE HOUSE

So there are my endorsements for November 2006. I can't believe I'm endorsing the Democrats, even though my contempt for the Democratic Party in general is as strong as ever, and my sense, based on limited information caused by considerable apathy, is that the Democrats in the House of Representatives are mostly loony tunes a la Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi. Why?

1) The most important thing is that the perpetrators of the "felony" immigration bill HR4437 be brought to justice. Better yet, since the Republican-led Senate has been much more liberal on immigration, they deserve to be rewarded (especially McCain).

2) The Senate is what matters with respect to judicial appointments. The idea of a "living constitution," i.e. the systematic usurpation of powers appropriate to the people by judges, should be stopped. We should keep the Senate in office to keep getting judicial appointments like Roberts and Alito.

3) I'm not optimistic, but who knows, it might be useful to give the Democrats at least a little bit of power so that they'll start musing over what the task of responsible government might, theoretically, consist of. Right now, the Democrats are defined by their mindless, reactionary, utterly unprincipled self-blindfolding to the problems of the Social Security program. Clinton was 100 times superior to contemporary Democrats. I don't know why. But maybe being in power had something to do with it.

It just might happen, if two groups vote strategically: Hispanics and opponents of abortion. Hispanics should like the Senate right now, and hate the House. As for social conservatives, a lot of them are abortion single-issue voters and might oppose the Republicans on everything else. Well, it's the Senate, not the House, that advises and consents on judicial appointments, a smart pro-lifer could protest-vote for a Democrat for the House of Representatives, while supporting the cause by voting for a Republican Senator.

A Democratic victory for the House might also encourage the Republicans to nominate John McCain in 2008, rather than a more conventional (and anti-immigration) conservative.