Compassionate conservatism was, in practice, nothing more than spin and a vague gesture at a higher-order justification for corruption. ~Matt Yglesias

Speaking as someone who viewed “compassionate conservatism” as something more than spin, I would note that from a conservative perspective the first term proposals of “compassionate conservatism,” whether NCLB or the “faith-based initiatives” or something else, were a form of corruption all their own–a corruption of schools on the one hand, and a corruption of churches and charities on the other.  But to divide the high Gersonian rhetoric from the corruption and policy disasters of the Bush years is a mistake that allows both to escape from real censure much too easily.  Gersonism facilitates corruption, because it breeds a sense of entitlement and a loss of restraint in how power and resources are used.  Gersonism almost has to lead to policy disasters, because its assessment of ends and means is horribly wrong.  Fundamental to the entire project is an unreflective optimism and self-confidence that says, “I know I’m trying to save the world (and I will save the world), and anyone who doesn’t appreciate that is a moral monster.”  The obvious danger with self-appointed revolutionary transformers of the world is that the only thing they see more clearly than the rightness of their own view is the depravity of their foes, which makes for the perfect recipe for fanaticism and abuse of power.

This is the trouble that both cynics and progressives have in trying to make sense of Bush.  People will assume that he is using “compassion” and “democracy” talk as cynical cover for something else or that he’s cloaking his allegedly deep right-wing commitments (ha!) beneath a lot of talk about government moving to assist hurting people.  What is difficult for Bush’s critics, myself included, to appreciate is just how obliviously sincere they are that they think they really are caring for people and helping people by laying waste to their countries, imposing absurd unfunded mandates on their schools, frittering money away on feel-good foreign aid projects that leads directly to more corruption abroad, etc.  They feel they are doing good, and so the consequences do not concern them, which is probably why they apparently give so little thought to consequences and the possibility that things will go awry.

Romney told the crowd of roughly 150 at the Jorge Mas Canosa youth center that he ”would never give money to Fidel Castro” — prompting a swell of cheers. ~The Miami Herald

Perhaps I haven’t been following Florida politics as closely as I thought I was–is there a live controversy about subsidies for Castro that has eluded my attention?  Now that Liz Cheney is advising him on foreign policy, perhaps he can also pledge that he will not fund Bashar Al-Assad.  Before Cuban-American voters get too swept up in these bold promises of not funding Castro (that’s some bold leadership for America, Mitt!), I would remind them that this is the same master of the pander who insisted that patria o muerte, vinceremos! was a wonderful, patriotic message that free Cubans should “reclaim” as their own.  Who let the dogs out, indeed.

Watch out, Romney supporters: Liz Cheney, fresh from badly advising Fred Thompson on foreign affairs, is backing your candidate.  It’s only a matter of time before the cold, creeping touch of Matalin follows and brings political doom with it.  In the endorsement race, McCain has picked up nods from two popular Floridian politicians who endorsed him out of annoyance with Romney’s sleeve-tugging, and Romney has the support of…Liz Cheney.  Those who have proposed that Romney represents some meaningful break with the Bush administration in foreign affairs might want to reconsider that view.

According to American Spectator‘s Prowler, Romney’s over-eager approach to courting endorsements in Florida backfired spectacularly on him:

In the past week both Florida Sen. Mel Martinez and Gov. Charlie Crist wavered on their promised endorsements for Sen. John McCain, before finally having their fill of the heavy-handed arm-twisting of the Mitt Romney campaign.

“It finally got to the point for both of them that they just got fed up with the constant harassment,” says a source close to both men who has worked for them as a political consultant. “They weren’t going to endorse Romney and under the right circumstances, one or both of them might have chosen to sit the primary out, but the Romney people just made it intolerable.” 

Note: Sorry for the interruption Sunday night.  Whatever server problems there were seem to have been resolved.

Since, unlike the present, tomorrow is always imaginary, such idolatry can be manipulated in many ways.  On the one hand, of course, the Stalins of the world can demand the death of millions in the name of a future paradise.  This is an especial concern of Camus, who complains of those who “glorify a future state of happiness, about which no one knows anything, so that the future authorizes every kind of humbug.”…

Given the ironic character of history, we should, at the very least, make sure that our actions have some value in the present.  The future that we imagine is unlikely to come about, if it does come about it will not last, and when it does come about we will probably despise it. ~Prof. Joshua Foa Dienstag, Pessimism

 

This election is about the past vs. the future. ~Barack Obama

I saw the Obama victory speech live on C-SPAN online, and I admit that it was an impressive rhetorical display.  It was all the more impressive because he managed to amaze his listeners and yet he didn’t say very much at all.  He kept saying things like, “We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington.”  This is a line that gets cheers, and sets up a nice opposition between Obama the unifying insurgent and the divisive, nasty status quo.  He pushed his campaign themes effectively, and he got in some clever digs at the Clintons.  That is what victory speeches are for, and he gave a good victory speech.  There is still something hubristic about the idea that his campaign marks the chance to end the old politics “once and for all.”  It is curious to me that Obama’s us vs. them rhetoric, while he defines himself as a candidate dedicated to unity, does not receive the same scorn for being like a “conspiracy theory” that Edwards’ similar rhetoric routinely receives.  The one solid, substantive line in the speech is his implicit pledge to end the Iraq war.  The rest of it is quite vague.  If that is what is scaring Republicans these days, they are in worse shape than I thought.

Here’s a Giuliani ad that seems more like a parody of a Giuliani ad (don’t they all?), as if there were a movie trailer about Giuliani’s campaign: “In a world full of danger, only Rudy Giuliani knows what to do!”  I kept recalling National Treasure previews for some reason.

Well, Obama surpassed the pretty high standard that I was setting.  I said that he needed to win convincingly with Romney-in-Nevada-like numbers, and he did.  Even taking the large black electorate into account, winning by 28 points in a three-way race is a convincing victory.  Obviously, the significance for the Democratic race is great, especially for his potential in Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey and states across the South, and Obama deserves credit for his impressive win.  Still, let’s keep some perspective.  There’s no need to be overcome by Obama-fear just yet. 

This result does not necessarily mean that he will be able to compete effectively in a national race, much less does it mean that he can “put Southern states into play.”  Some points: he finished third among non-black Democrats (23%), and he likewise finished a closer third among non-black non-Democrats (27%).  He received a similar level of support from white men (27%), and was weaker with white women (22%).  An Obama-led ticket would probably not “put Southern states into play,” but would rather take them out of play.  It would not necessarily be race that does this, but instead a combination of his left-liberal record and his “politics from above” that will simultaneously drive away moderate voters and downscale voters.

If the current numbers hold up, Obama will have won 55-27 over Clinton.  If both Clintons are going to run against him as they have been doing, it is oddly fitting that he get two votes for each one of hers.

P.S.  He seems to have exceeded all expectations tonight, and won by 12 points more than his best poll results before the vote and outperformed the RCP average of his South Carolina position by 17 points.

Related to the infrastructure post below, I was watching Huckabee talk about delays in commuting and travel on roads and at airports on C-SPAN, and he had this one brilliant line that we should work to have “time to be Americans again.”  He was referring specifically to the lost time and wasted social capital (he actually used the phrase “social capital”) that people are losing in commuting and travel.  That line is perfect for a slogan–it states Huckabee’s message succinctly while still actually meaning something.  If there are any Huckabee people out there reading this, you should latch on to this phrase and work it into Huckabee’s speeches as often as possible.

McCain snags one of the most-coveted endorsements in Florida, and probably one of the few endorsements in the state that may move votes to a candidate.