"TNR's Week In Review (Oct. 26 - Nov. 1)"

TheNewRepublic.com
October 31, 2008

Link

"The End Of Conservatism"

TheNewRepublic.com
October 27, 2008

This piece from the 1992 presidential campaign, by TNR senior editor John B. Judis, holds up remarkably well:

When conservatives repeatedly declare that George Bush's failures as president are the result of his having spurned their ideas and movement, they are harboring illusions born of their fleeting success under Ronald Reagan. In fact, the conservative movement that carried Reagan to victory barely exists any longer; it has dissipated into various cantankerous and confused factions; and the ideas associated with it have become obsolete, discredited, or heavily in dispute among conservatives themselves.

Judis explains that the very idea of a conservative movement is a sort of misnomer--that, in fact, Bush Sr. (and, we now know, Bush Jr.) never could have enjoyed the success that Reagan did.

Until the mid-1950s there was no common body of "conservative" political ideas or any movement that was called "conservative." Instead, conservatives and the right consisted of disconnected and often feuding factions that could claim few common causes.What has happened over the last five years is that American conservatives -- who created a coherent movement about thirty-five years ago and won national power in 1980 -- have slipped back into the chaos and impotence that prevailed before the mid-'50s. ...

What conservatives were discovering was that they had aligned themselves with a movement that was genuinely reactionary and that by its nature would dwindle rather than grow. ... As Bush enters his last political campaign, he has suffered as much from the conservatives' decline as they have from his.

Read the entire piece (and try to remember you're reading about George H.W. Bush and not his son) here.

Link

TNR.com’s Week In Review (Oct. 18-25)

TheNewRepublic.com
Oct. 24, 2008
  • Not a good week for Republicans, beginning with Colin Powell's moving endorsement of Obama (although Powell doctrine experts saw it coming). North Carolina's senate race turned south for Republican Elizabeth Dole, whose opponent is a real Cinderella story. Republicans are nominating such total wingnuts in Congressional races that even dedicated conservatives are turned off. John McCain is losing in his own backyard. In fact, he's losing pretty much everywhere: Nate Silver gives him a 3.7% chance of winning.
  • More fallout from the recession: It might be kinda good for the environment, Bush handled the economy worse than Herbert Hoover, and "secret socialist" is the new "secret Muslim." Speaking of socialists, Brian Moore, presidential nominee for the Socialist Party USA, sits down for an interview and says things like, "We were stung temporarily by the Cold War and Stalinism."
  • David Axelrod, self-described "keeper of the message," may have just learned how to conquer race in politics. In case there was any doubt, TNR officially endorsed Barack Obama for president, while Jeffrey Rosen warned us of a judicial apocalypse if McCain wins.
  • Michael Crowley detailed the sloppy proliferation of polls, and Tim Marchman talked about baseball fans' sloppy distaste for LOOGIES.
Link

"World's Most Popular Evangelist"


TheNewRepublic.com
October 23, 2008

K.A. Paul, whom The New Republic dubbed "the world's most popular evangelist," endorsed Barack Obama for president yesterday.The Indian-born US resident, who worked as spirital advisor to Saddam Hussein, Charles Taylor, and Slobodan Milosevic, among others, explained his endorsement:


Speaking from an evangelical perspective, the current administration, I believe, has delayed the second coming of Jesus. Since the Iraq war, missionaries have been forced out of many countries, their work unfinished. As it says in Matthew 24:14, 'the gospel will be preached in the whole world.' The Bush administration's Iraq war policy has been in direct contradiction to Matthew.
TNR Senior Editor Michelle Cottle's 2004 profile of Paul explains how a man with such incredible influence--Paul recounts his experience convincing the notoriously brutal Haitian revolutionary Guy Philippe to lay down his arms--can be so unknown in the United States. Paul's Houston-based Global Peace Initiative has gained him stature among evangelical leaders, who speak in awe of his popularity abroad:


By all accounts, Dr. Paul's overseas peace rallies are sights to behold. Most take place in Africa or India, where villagers stream in from around the countryside to see, as one Indian paper put it, "the mesmerizing evangelist," who has become a minor celebrity across much of both continents. A "small" rally is defined as an audience of 10,000 or 20,000. Large rallies stretch upward of a million. (GPI claims its largest was three million attendees at a 2001 event in Lagos, Nigeria.) Surrounding the speakers' podium, on which Paul is joined by local politicos and traveling dignitaries, bodies crowd together in a sea of humanity. "I hesitate to tell people how big these crowds are, because they can't comprehend it," says Texas oil billionaire Nelson Bunker Hunt, who served as co-chair of GPI until recently. Until you see the crowds yourself, you assume the numbers are inflated, agrees Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who traveled to India with Paul in January 2002. "But there were maybe seventy-five thousand, a hundred thousand," Huckabee says of the rally he attended. "I'm not sure I ever saw that many people except at a major football game."
Read more on what makes KA Paul such a fascinating--and controversial--global religious leader, and why he is so unknown in the US, here.

Link

"Silencing The Students: How 134 stubborn registrars in Virginia could swing the vote against Obama."

The New Republic
October 9, 2008

For the first time since 1964, Democrats actually have a chance of winning Virginia's 13 electoral votes. Barack Obama is up 4.8% according to the Real Clear Politics average, and according to Nate Silver, Virginia could be one of this election's decisive swing states. And, in a state with 161 colleges and 483,159 students, the predominantly Democratic youth vote could play a huge role in tipping the election Obama's way.

But there's a hold-up: Virginia's local laws make it exceedingly difficult for students to register in their college towns. Indeed, though other states like Idaho and Tennessee also make student registration so difficult as to border on disenfranchisement, the barriers to student voter registration in Virginia are, some experts say, some of the most problematic in the country.

At Virginia Polytechnic Institute in Blacksburg, for instance, students who visited their local registration office last month were met with dire warnings from the Montgomery County registrar, Randall Wertz. Wertz issued official releases telling students that, by registering, "you have declared your independence from your parents and can no longer be claimed as a dependent on their income tax filings. ... If you have a scholarship attached to your former residence, you could lose this funding." Juanita Pitchford, the registrar for Fredericksburg, where the University of Mary Washington is located, requires that all students interview with her before registering so she can decide on a case-by-case basis whether they can vote. "The student must prove that it is their intent to be considered living in Fredericksburg," said Pitchford (who, in 2004, denied applications from all on-campus students), speaking to The Free Lance-Star. Recently, Pitchford said, "I speak to every student ... and I explain the full ramifications" of registering, including telling students that registering in Fredericksburg can jeopardize scholarships and tax dependency on their parents.

Other problems abound as well. In Williamsburg, home of the College of William and Mary, a now-fired registrar changed standards for voting ten times between 2004 and 2007. One time, for instance, he required a local driver's license of students; another time he required a local cell phone number. In Norfolk, until a push by the Obama campaign helped change practices, students wishing to register were sent misleading "questionnaires" implying they were ineligible, thus discouraging them from following through.

Such efforts have been called unethical, and they may not jibe with Supreme Court rulings on voting rights. A recent article in The New York Times exposing what Wertz had done in Blacksburg referenced a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "students have the right to register at their college address." But registration standards are set out at the state level, and while Virginia's legislation doesn't explicitly restrict student voting, its vague language allows registrars to turn away students. State law requires that all voters prove "domicile" where they wish to register, but it defines the term loosely. Registrars may decide on their own whether dormitories can be considered "domicile," or if a voter must pay local taxes to register, for example. Student registration is, therefore, left almost entirely up to the whim of Virginia's 134 registrars, who may interpret the clause about domicile however they choose, while staying technically within the bounds of state law.

Activists from the ACLU and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, along with Obama state officials, are working frantically to reform Virginia's byzantine standards on a local level, stubborn registrar by stubborn registrar. Pitchford, the Fredericksburg registrar, says she's been contacted "many times" by the Obama campaign's lawyers. Kevin Griffis, a local campaign spokesman who says that the campaign has not encountered these kinds of barriers anywhere else in the country, has made statements to nearly every college-town newspaper in the state, defending dormitories as "a perfectly acceptable residence to register to vote" and decrying registration barriers as "completely ridiculous."

Campaign staffers tout Norfolk, for example, with Old Dominion's 20,000 students, as one spot where their efforts have succeeded. Obama campaign representatives spoke with the registrar, the election board, and even the mayor, finally convincing the registrar to allow registration for all students. But the big state-wide changes needed in Virginia--the kind that would refine the language of the registration laws to exclude any ambiguities--may take a bit longer. Virginia state congressmen have a vested interest in keeping the law vague, since the majority of them are Republicans. William J. Howell, for example, the speaker of the state House and one of Virginia's most powerful politicians, is a Republican from Fredericksburg. Should large numbers of the 22 percent of Fredericksburg's population that attends the University of Mary Washington ever decide to support his opponent, he could lose his seat. Civil rights groups as well as state and local officials have been asking the state legislature to clarify registration standards for years, but it has long refused--likely because any such legislation would have to be in line with the Supreme Court's 1979 decision, thus making student registration far easier--and, in any case, it is on recess until January 2009.

In the absence of state-level movement, federal legislators are finally getting involved, though it's unclear what effect, if any, a few Congressional Democrats will have on Virginia's Republican legislators. House members attending the recent hearing on student voting repeatedly expressed outrage over the problems in Virginia; one committee member waved a copy of the recent Times article over his head as he opined against the state's standards. U.S. Representative Janice Schakowsky of Illinois, also in attendance, used the opportunity to push the Student Voter Act of 2008. The bill would allow colleges to act as voter registration agencies, thus allowing students to bypass county or city registrars, but it has been in committee since July and has only one co-sponsor. With this bill not yet on the table, and only a month left until the election, there is little the Obama campaign can do except work with local registrars and officials, one by one, to secure nearby students' right to vote. With the polls so close, every college town--and the block of potential student-voters it represents--could be the one to make the difference.

Link

" The Real Reason American Authors Don't Win Nobels"

TheNewRepublic.com
October 2, 2008

The Nobel Prize committee's top member and permanent secretary, Horace Engdahl, told the Associated Press Tuesday that American literature can't compete with the rest of the world: "The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature. ... That ignorance is restraining."

The reaction in the U.S. has been to accuse the Nobel committee of either an anti-American bias, which the A.P. report suggests, or of simple ignorance.

"Such a comment makes me think that Mr. Engdahl has read little of American literature outside the mainstream and has a very narrow view of what constitutes literature in this age," said Harold Augenbraum, who heads the National Book Awards. "I'll send him a reading list."

But there's another explanation for the paucity of American Nobel winners. The committee doesn't oppose Americans--they oppose postmodernism, which has dominated American literature since the 1960s. This would explain the exclusion of not just Americans, but of prominent non-American postmodernists like Salman Rushdie and Umberto Eco. It would also partly explain Engdahl's statement: Anyone can see that the U.S. participates in a "big dialogue of literature"--the issue is that it isn't a dialogue he thinks is worthwhile.

After all, the American authors who have been denied the prize have something far more significant than their nationality in common: Thomas Pynchon, Philip Roth, Don DeLillo, and William Burroughs are all leading figures in the postmodern tradition. Postmodernism has been central to American literature for decades. David Foster Wallace, whose death last month at age 46 rocked the literary world, could not have been more postmodern.

The only exception to the Nobel committee's apparent embargo on postmodernism has been the Turkish writer Orham Pamuk, who won in 2006. However, Pamuk, who writes politically-charged novels about his country's history of government and social oppression, may have won despite his postmodern style rather than because of it. Most of the recent laureates have written politically-oriented fiction protesting their oppressive, non-Western societies: Doris Lessing from Zimbabwe, Gao Xingjian from China and V.S. Naipaul from Trinidad, for example.

Why does the Nobel committee reject postmodern literature? Is it because postmodernism is somehow intrinsically, almost uniquely American, and simply does not resonant with readers in Europe? Or is the answer political. Postmodernist works are rarely political, owing to their treatment of objectivity and truth as a falsehood. Postmodernists typically don't attack or defend any political or social ideologies--they reject the entire premise. Whatever its virtues, the Nobel committee's clear preoccupation with politically-oriented literature stands in the way of recognizing postmodernist authors.

Link