But neither the New Mexico governor nor the two senators with the most time in office said or did anything that ignited the sparks you need to move up in the hierarchy of the race, which inevitably becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. ~Susan Estrich

This is something I hate about the political media.  The “hierarchy” didn’t exist four months ago until political journalists created it by dubbing the people they had chosen to write about the most the “most viable,” and then the pundits, who are lower on the political media food chain, reinforce the mythical hierarchy by treating it as if it were an actual structure that just came into being on its own.  The only reason why the “frontrunners” have managed to establish themselves as presumptive favourites is that they are already famous and have access to money because of their fame, while lesser-known candidates, who are inevitably better qualified and would probably be better at the position, must complete Herculean labours before they will even be given a brief look.  Then, once someone gives them a brief look, he declares them hopeless because they have not completed all twleve Herculean labours.

Obama was as jittery as an aged Katharine Hepburn [bold mine-DL], and gave away the natural advantage of his tremendous intellect by failing to provide any specifics. He shied away from engaging frontrunner Clinton and appeared timid and uninformed. His candidacy can’t afford another appearance this bad. ~Kevin Hassett

On the other side, Mr. Hassett believes nuestro gubernador became the credible challenger for the nomination, which is what amateur election observers who have already picked Richardson as the winner, as I have, want to hear. 

Of course, Mr. Hassett works at AEI on economic policy and served as a McCain advisor in 2000, so it’s entirely possible that he understands very little about electoral politics.

Rove is more than a symbol. He is the architect of Bush’s election triumphs and an influential player in pushing the president’s agenda. He represents Republican success. ~Fred Barnes

So you have peculiar situations where authors can report an unending sequence of facts which suggest an epoch of relative material scarcity and decreased social complexity who just won’t admit that judged by these metrics there was a downsizing. ~Razib

I have a couple points expanding on my original response to Razib’s otherwise very good review of Ward-Perkins’ new book.  First, perhaps there are such people as Razib describes, but we would need to be specific about this.  Which authors actually say, “The cities shrank, everyone was poorer and trade weakened, but you cannot say that any of these things actually got worse in material terms“?  The entire argument revolves around which standards you are using to judge the civilisation.  Obviously when judged by material wealth, the scale and frequency of building, levels of trade, the size of the military, the vitality of civic institutions, etc., things got worse, especially after the 4th century and even more so in the sixth and seventh.  The curial class really did effectively collapse by the sixth century, both because the state made it an undesirable role to have and the function it fulfilled ceased to possess the significance that it once had; other institutions (the bureaucracy and Church mainly) were developing that proved more attractive to the leading men of the cities; reduced means and increased burdens made the responsibilities of the curiales harder and harder to meet.  I have no problem acknowledging that the curial class vanished and that this was a change for the worse if we’re talking about preserving the traditional form of the Roman city.  What I am not going to do is beat my breast and lament the departure from late Roman urbanism, since it is not really the purpose of an historian to approach things this way.  Besides, there’s more than one way to assess the accomplishments of a civilisation.  Arguably, given the reduced material conditions of the postclassical period the cultural production of the Mediterranean Christian world in these centuries should be regarded as even more impressive than they already are; these societies managed to produce works of enduring importance and, one might argue, greater value in much more straitened cirucmstances.  The point is not to get into some fruitless back-and-forth over whose period is better, but simply to insist that narratives that privilege one era over another have unhealthy distorting effects on the study of both periods and they cause scholars to constantly look for those things that “anticipate” the decline of the “‘higher” period rather than approaching the evidence less tendentiously.   

Second, it is more likely that the authors who stress change and transformation rather than speaking in terms of decline are historians primarily concerned with questions of meaning and social function, and so do not have much to say about the “relative material scarcity” except to acknowledge that it existed.  Consequently, the ways in which late antique society are not like its grand, paradigmatic classical forerunner are only interesting insofar as they actually illuminate the characteristics of late antique society.  It is better to understand why people lit a votive candle at a saint’s shrine than curse the “Dark Ages.” 

For good or ill (I tend to think it ill), institutional history today generally is in decline (though it has not yet fallen!), while narratives of “decline and fall” has everything to do with the decline and fall of institutions, whether civic, fiscal, political or military.  Narratives of decline and fall are inevitably focused on the state.  In these narratives, state-building is civilisation is progress.  In a similarly overwrought way, disintegration of the state equals barbarism equals general decay.  There is also more than a little of this applied to the progressive nationalist telling of American, German and Italian (and even early Chinese) history.  According to these views, you are presented with the following absurdities: the genius of American republicanism was somehow secured and made better after the War of Secession under such giants as Grant and Hayes; Leibniz, Goethe, Schiller and Kant were the products of an inferior culture because they lived before  unification; the Quattrocento was the product of a period of Italian decadence because there was frequent warfare between the cities; it was better that the Warring States period that produced Confucius, Mo-tzu and Laotzu, among others, gave way to the stifling centralisation of the Ch’in and the Legalists.  It would seem clear that state-centered narratives of progress and decline are deeply flawed, which is one reason why late antique historians have done all they can to get rid of such a model of the late Roman period. 

Ironically, Byzantine studies is one of the last holdouts for scholars focusing on institutions, even though by the standards of the older classicists Byzantine institutions are all degraded and sub-par (don’t even get them started on the monasteries).  There is always a danger that history will fall into these patterns because so much of the record comes from state records or chronicles and other sources that tend to privilege what the political leadership is doing.  Of course, there is some truth in any narrative tying state formation with advantages in terms of internal security and peace, and there is certainly great importance in understanding institutional structures of any society.  What late antique historians will keep insisting on, I think, is that they want to keep those things in a balance with the study of society, culture and religion.  If man does not live by bread alone, neither should we measure the worth of a civilisation simply or primarily by the continuation of the annona.

At first, I thought my improved rank in the TTLB ecosystem had something to do with the greater attention Eunomia had received lately (and, of course, all the fine content that you are being provided).  It seems that I was kidding myself.  The entirerankingsystem seemsto havegonehaywire.  I was alerted to just how wrong things were when I noticed a few impossibilities: Don Surber was in the top ten, and Instapundit, Michelle Malkin and The Corner had all dramatically dropped into insignificance.  Goodness knows we all hope for such a day, but I think we have to assume that there was a major glitch somewhere.

For the past few months, while he has virtually been crowned Antiwar Republican Demigod by certain enthusiasts, I have complained that Chuck Hagel said a lot of promising-sounding things but never actually did anything.  Well, okay, he is at least doing something now.  It isn’t much, and it doesn’t reflect a foreign policy vision all that terribly different from the rest of his party (the divergence from which may be an unreasonable expectation on my part), but it is something.  Robert Novak reports his recent conversation with Hagel, who continues to describe a deteriorating situation in Iraq, and Novak concludes by saying:

Hagel represents millions of Republicans who are repelled by the Democrats’ personal assault on President Bush but are deeply unhappy about his course in Iraq.

I suppose I have a hard time understanding antiwar Hagel admirers because I have a hard time understanding the thinking behind the position Novak has described here.  This sentence seems to say: Hagel represents millions of Republicans who are deeply confused.  This might be an accurate statement of political reality, but it is hardly the image of Chuck “Taking A Stand” Hagel that this column is supposed to show.  The bumper sticker slogan does not make the heart leap: “Vote Hagel–he’s just as confused and ambivalent about Iraq as you are!”  Think about this for a moment.  If you are deeply unhappy about a very important policy, and the President from your party is the main supporter and advocate of that policy and seems completely oblivious to the damage it is doing to country and party, shouldn’t you be very annoyed with the President?  Shouldn’t you want a “personal assault” (politically speaking) on such a person?  Shouldn’t you want the opposition to him to be as strong as it possibly can be?  Apparently not.  Apparently your tribune is Chuck “Go Sell Shoes” Hagel.

Meanwhile, House Republicans who bit the bullet and went on record in a nonbinding resolution opposing the “surge” have been met with contempt back home:

With public opinion tilting firmly toward ending U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq, Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.) might have expected praise for his votes that would start to bring the troops home. Instead, at town hall meetings on the Eastern Shore, the former Marine and Vietnam combat veteran has been called a coward and a traitor.

Now it seems to me that the rather more cowardly thing most House members did was to vote against that resolution even though they knew it had no binding consequences and they knew that they would suffer politically with their core voters.  Unreasonable war supporters will be, well, unreasonable, but these folks have some nerve to call cowardly one of the few dissenters from the party line people like them impose on their representatives. 

But if there are indeed “millions of Republicans” who feel as Hagel does, why are there episodes like this one in eastern Maryland?  Either the “millions of Republicans” who share Hagel’s dissatisfaction with the war are quiescent and don’t attend town hall meetings, none of them lives in Gilchrest’s district in Maryland (which is one of the relatively more evenly-split, moderate Republican-held districts) or perhaps they are the sort who like to grumble about Mr. Bush’s war behind closed doors but don’t like anyone actually doing anything practical to register this opposition.  I have no idea.  I would very much like to know where these “millions of Republicans” are, because there do not seem to be very many who live in any Republican-held districts.  Could it be that the approximately 30% of Republicans opposed to the “surge” all live in districts represented by Democrats anyway?  Could war support among constituents of the GOP’s rump House caucus actually be substantially higher than the national Republican average?  Such a thing would be almost as baffling as it would be horrifying. 

The reaction in South Carolina was more predictable, because Bob Inglis’ district was always a lot more conventionally mainstream conservative (and therefore, I’m sorry to say, that much more easily propagandised by the idiocies of Hugh Hewitt and friends):

After Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush’s troop increases, reaction in his district was so furious that local GOP officials all but invited a primary challenge to the reliable conservative. Inglis responded with multiple mailings to his constituents, fence-mending efforts and a video message on his House Web site pleading his case. On subsequent Iraq votes, he has not strayed from the Republican fold.   

Meanwhile, the alleged defeatist and peacenik Sam Brownback continues to make liars of his pro-war critics (a role to which they are presumably quite accustomed):

“This isn’t the way to go,” Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said of the Democrats’ bill yesterday on ABC’s “This Week.” “This is assured defeat. Defeat will happen in America, not in Iraq. That’s not what the American people want.”

In light of the appalling overall conformity of GOP rank-and-file sentiment on the war, I suppose Hagel’s stand is rather more impressive than I usually admit.  He is coping with a political reality in the modern GOP that seems to beggar reason and common sense, and under the circumstances he has been reasonably consistent, albeit still pretty far from heroic Lawrence-esque “don’t give up the ship!” defiance.

Eight years later, it is Clinton who is running for president, and Penn, 53, is her chief strategist. While not her campaign manager in name, Penn controls the main elements of her campaign, most important her attempt to define herself to an electorate seemingly ready for a Democratic president but possibly still suffering from Clinton fatigue. ~The Washington Post

Via Yglesias

This idea of Clinton fatigue has been going around for some time, and I remain unpersuaded that such a thing exists except among all those people who would never vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances and who never did vote for Clinton.  Goodness knows, I am tired of Hillary Clinton, but then I am also tired of all of the presidential candidates and it is still only April 2007.  As for everyone else, not only does there seem to be a troubling lack of Clinton fatigue, but there also seems to be an undue level of Clinton enthusiasm (except among the Obamaniacs).  Someone needs to explain to me why the roughly two-thirds of the country that continued to approve of Bill Clinton’s performance as President through his final day are supposed to feel fatigued by the idea of another Clinton.  This is especially unclear when this is after the public has experienced, in all its unpleasantness, the consequences of choosing (twice!) the candidate whose great virtue in 2000 was that he was not tied to Clinton.  Remember the guy who was going to bring back integrity and honour to the office?  So much for that. 

An association with Clinton was once considered in certain circles the political kiss of death, but today it might be a boost.  After what will be almost eight years of Bush, the appeal of some sort of return to something like the ’90s (whose nostalgic value has skyrocketed under Mr. Bush) is probably going to be a lot stronger than many are allowing.  Obama is banking on the exact opposite being true, which is why he has pithced his campaign (rather incredibly) as a departure from the bad, old days of partisan bickering, but my impression of the country’s mood is not so much that it wants amity and bipartisanship as it wants the government to stop enormously screwing up everything it touches.  “Let’s get back to Clinton-era levels of incompetence and corruption!” could be Hillary’s winning slogan. 

All of this doesn’t mean that Clinton would be anything but a complete horror as President, but at the moment I don’t quite understand the argument for why the general public is supposed to be tired of the name Clinton.  It seems to me that some people talk about Clinton fatigue as a way to counterbalance to the very real Bush fatigue that almost everyone has (perhaps it has even reached Barney).  My guess is that those who want to push the “Clinton fatigue” meme the most are the people who feel bitter that Jeb Bush cannot run for President because of his last name.

A Thompson run would be a serious, possibly fatal, blow to the prospects of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who hopes to emerge (against either McCain or Giuliani) as the “conservative alternative.” Thompson would be a rival for that role, and the announcement of his candidacy would create at least a temporary boomlet that would eclipse Romney if the former governor had not already increased his standing in key polls. ~Stuart Rothenburg

You have to appreciate the willingness of Republican voters to avoid the exhausting pursuit of authenticity.  In spite of the supposed yearning for the return of Reagan, Republicans have been only too happy to state considerable support for an occasional cross-dresser, a media darling, a monumental fraud, a stunning hypocrite and an actor.  It now seems to me (and Stuart Rothenburg) that Thompson should hurt Romney quite a lot if and when Thompson joins the race.  In the past, I have assumed that Fred Thompson’s candidacy was absurd and of no importance, but as I have since discovered his candidacy is only too viable and it is the democratic process that is truly and uncompromisingly absurd.   

The subtle and learned James Poulos believes Thompson’s candidacy does not hurt Romney.  Let me offer an explanation for why I now think this probably is the case.  First of all, there’s not enough room for two pretenders in the race.  Romney is pretending to be a conservative, and Fred Thompson the actor will be pretending that he is a viable candidate for President.  Thompson, as one skilled in the art of pretending, will do a much better job in his chosen role than Romney can do in his, so much so that otherwise sane people will buy Thompson’s candidacy when they will not buy Romney’s conservatism.  Where Thompson’s pretense will seem charming and endearing, Romney’s will continue to be seen as embarrassing and insulting to thinking people everywhere.  If you believe Dobson, Thompson is not really a Christian, but if true this also hurts Romney, who is also not really a Christian.  There is the possibility that Thompson threatens to undermine Romney in that pivotal “non-Christian conservative” voting bloc.  Thompson drives a pickup truck; Romney made his announcement surrounded by “cars and memories,” including his dad’s model compact car, the Rambler.  In the GOP primaries, the pickup truck beats the Rambler every day.  Thompson and Romney are both rich, but Romney’s entire persona screams “corporate robot,” while Thompson’s lawyer/actor past (which ought to make him completely untrustworthy) oddly makes him seem more accessible and, well, human.  Then there is the matter that Thompson is actually credible when he says he is pro-life, while Romney never will be.  Both of them are almost unhinged in their Persophobia, but again Thompson wins the contest because he has been seen on television in military uniform in a movie and Romney has not.

In Colorado, Republican Sen. Wayne Allard’s decision not to seek reelection set the stage for one of the nation’s most competitive 2008 races. But the top choice of party leaders, former Rep. Scott McInnis, has taken a pass, citing family reasons. McInnis had nearly $1 million stockpiled for the race. ~The Los Angeles Times

The rest of the article details GOP weakness in candidate recruiting and fundraising for next year, as many of the more promising potential candidates have been discovering “family reasons” and the like with greater frequency.  Give Mr. Bush credit for this–he is encouraging more Republican politicians to put their families first!  The reason?  Well, the political environment for Republican candidates is a little difficult right now (the words “poisonous” and “toxic” litter the article). 

Then there was this item:

Broader signs of Republican distress also are turning up across the country.

When voters five years ago were asked which party they identified with, neither Democrats nor Republicans held an advantage. Now 50% of voters say they are aligned with the Democrats, and 35% with Republicans, according to a survey released last month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Those are the sorts of party identification numbers you see in New Mexico, where the state GOP hasn’t held power in over seven decades.  The so-called 50-50 nation is very, very dead.  Mr. Bush and Iraq killed it.

Meanwhile, the GOP leadership continues to whistle past the graveyeard:

“No question, the president’s gone through a rough patch. But the central figure for the Republicans next year is not going to be George Bush,” said Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

A rough patch?  Bill Clinton went through a “rough patch” when he got impeached.  Politically speaking, the last two years for Bush have been like someone driving off a cliff, hitting a power line and then falling into a burning building.  It’s true that Bush will not be the “central figure” next year.  He’ll just be the President whose terrible decisions haunt the next GOP nominee wherever he goes like some dread wraith.  But he won’t be the central figure–they could have someone like Giuliani to rally around!  No wonder Republicans are depressed.

For a time. Once the frenzy of the nominating campaign was over, Royal proved a candidate so weak as to horrify the Socialist rank and file. For a politician who speaks so often about listening to ordinary people, she is authoritarian in private, according to Eric Besson, a snubbed top aide who gave a bestselling book-length interview this spring before defecting to the Sarkozy camp. She does not have an intellect of the very top caliber and she is not built for the unglamorous, reflective business of organizing, course-setting, and administration. In a way that will remind Americans of their own president, she misspeaks almost constantly. A practical joker got her cell phone number and tricked her into endorsing the independence of Quebec. On a trip to China, she told an official that France could learn a lot from China’s speedy justice system. Meaning to attack one of her detractors for his misplaced wit (esprit), she accused him of spiritualité (spirituality). People understood what she meant, but it was like calling Greeks “Grecians.” ~Christopher Caldwell