Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Museum Trip

Night at the Museum opens at #1.

Never Been Kissed

I'm not sure what to make of rumors that Charlize Theron will play Will Smith's love interest in an upcoming film. You may recall that when Hitch was released, Smith claimed that Cameron Diaz was originally supposed to play his love interest, but Hollywood executives pulled the plug on that idea because they feared American audiences would be reluctant to see the film. If Hollywood had second thoughts about showing Smith romantically involved with a white woman onscreen in 2005, the industry won't all of a sudden become enthusiastic about the idea now. My guess is that Theron will not be cast, and the role will go to someone else--Jada Pinkett Smith, perhaps?

UPDATE: More from Variety.

Enough Already

John Kerry, would you please shut the hell up?!

I Swear...

What's this? A politically correct Massachusetts Democrat lawmaker using racial slurs?

Patriot Games

How large of a role will patriotism play in the 2008 Presidential election?

Looking back over the Presidential elections of the last thirty years, it's clear that Democrats win when patriotism is not a major cultural factor, and Republicans win when patriotism is dominant. In 1976, America was reeling from the impact of Vietnam and Watergate, and a significant portion of the population did not feel a true sense of pride in their country and especially in their government. As a result, Jimmy Carter, promising change, defeated Gerald Ford to win the Presidency.

America's dormant sense of patriotism was reawakened by the November 1979 Iranian hostage crisis; that patriotism was coupled with a sense of outrage over Carter's less-than-adequate response to the terrorist kidnappings. Disgusted by Carter's ineptitude, the American electorate turned to Ronald Reagan; several weeks after Reagan's November 1980 defeat of Carter, the hostages were freed.

As the economic unease of the late-1970s and early-1980s receded, and Americans paid more attention to the threat posed by Communist Russia, patriotism intensified in the United States; Reagan's November 1984 landslide victory over Walter Mondale was a testament to the power of this resurgent national pride. Four years later, George H. W. Bush, riding the coattails of Reagan's patriotic legacy, defeated Michael Dukakis in the 1988 Presidential election.

Patriotism filled the air as never before in early-1991 during the United States' first foray into Iraq; however, by early-1992, such strong patriotic sentiment had almost entirely disappeared, replaced by intense economic anxiety and the perception of Bush as an aloof, distant figure. Bill Clinton took advantage of these circumstances to win the White House in November 1992.

With the Cold War over and foreign policy no longer at the forefront of most Americans' minds, patriotism was no longer a major factor, and Clinton coasted to re-election in 1996. Despite post-1996 terrorist incidents such as the 1998 African embassy bombings and the 2000 USS Cole bombing, foreign policy remained a non-factor in the minds of most Americans; the closeness of the 2000 election was the result of multiple factors, but a strong sense of patriotism was not one of them.

After the 9/11 attacks, a patriotic spirit swept America for the first time in a decade, and for several weeks Americans stood unified against the threat posed by extremist Islam. Once it became clear that President George W. Bush planned to extend the fight against terrorism to countries (such as Iraq) whose leaders had financed and supported anti-American aggression, the old political divisions returned, but American patriotism remained strong; despite some economic unease and continued controversy over the Iraq War, the American electorate's revived patriotism powered Bush to a November 2004 re-election victory.

As preparations begin for the 2008 Presidential election, it's unclear if American patriotism will remain strong. A perceived lack of progress in Iraq has apparently damaged the American spirit, resulting in the Democrat Party regaining control of the House of Representatives and Senate. Absent a strong sense of national pride, the electorate may decide to make the same choice they made in 1976, 1992 and 1996.

In order to counteract the apparent weakening of the American will, the Republicans must nominate a candidate who can effectively and forcefully describe the nature of the threat we face from extremist Islam, something Bush has never consistently done. In the 1980s, Reagan clearly outlined the extent of the danger posed by the USSR; by doing so, Reagan managed to keep the American patriotic fire roaring. Will the 2008 GOP nominee be able to do the same? Will the candidate be able to rally Americans the way Reagan did two decades ago? Or will patriotism fall from the American consciousness again, allowing a Democrat to return to power?

Here's hoping the Republican Party learns from history, and selects a candidate skilled enough to articulate the nature of the threat we face and talented enough to reinvigorate the American patriotic spirit--because if the GOP doesn't learn from history, we'll all be doomed to repeat it.

Big Shot

Next March marks the tenth anniversary of the murder of hip-hop artist Christopher Wallace, better known as The Notorious B.I.G. Wallace was shot to death in Los Angeles after attending the 1997 Soul Train Music Awards; the killer has yet to be found and and will likely never be discovered.

Much has been written about the deleterious influence of hip-hop music on American culture, particularly African-American culture; I certainly haven't been shy about criticizing rap-music thuggery. However, I can't deny that Wallace was, for all his faults, a truly talented performer; there was something unique, something "above the fray," something memorable about his music, which is more than one can say for many hip-hop artists who've gained a following in the years following his death.

Wallace's first album, 1994's Ready To Die, became popular on the strength of songs such as "Juicy," "One More Chance," and "Big Poppa." "Juicy" is a heartbreaking, dramatic, unforgettable account of Wallace's rise from abject poverty and criminal activity to the pinnacle of the hip-hop industry; listening to the lyrics, one can hear Wallace's deep appreciation of the success he has enjoyed, a success borne of years of struggle. Wallace acknowledges that he's living the glamorous life, but can never forget the years of deprivation that preceded his fame.

"One More Chance" and especially "Big Poppa" obliterated the line between hip-hop and pop music; it's impossible to imagine Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter's songs having mainstream appeal if Wallace hadn't paved the way with those two singles. "Big Poppa" is a pure party song, hedonistic joy set to an Isley Brothers beat; in many ways, it's hip-hop's answer to Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up." Looking back, it shouldn't have surprised anyone when Michael Jackson asked Wallace to contribute to a song on his 1995 HIStory album; Jackson obviously recognized that Wallace shared his instinct for crafting songs satisfying to both commercial and artistic tastes.

Wallace's second album, Life After Death, was released soon after his murder. The album's first single, "Hypnotize," matched "Juicy" in its creative brilliance; fueled by a sample from Herb Alpert's 1979 instrumental "Rise," "Hypnotize" was, in essence, a hip-hop version of Muhammad Ali's self-aggrandizing boasts. Wallace declared himself the smartest, most talented, and most charismatic figure in hip-hop; after hearing his lyrical craftsmanship on display, one would be hard-pressed to disagree. The follow-up single, "Mo Money Mo Problems," was more of a Sean Combs song than a Wallace track, but the latter's talent shone through in the song's final verse.

Wallace was, at bottom, the Kurt Cobain of hip-hop: a talented musician who died before he could fulfill his potential as a legendary music figure. Like Cobain, Wallace is now considered a legend in part because of his early demise; however, we'll never know if he could have become a bona fide icon.

There was a certain skill to Wallace's work, a skill that is hard to find when one listens to mid-2000s hip-hop. While Carter does make an effort to be excellent, most modern rappers settle for mediocrity, if not worse. Turn to a hip-hop station these days and you'll hear hour after hour of overproduced crap from half-wits who probably threatened to blackmail somebody if they didn't get a recording contract. Even the supposedly "good" modern hip-hop figures are wildly overrated; can we all agree that the only decent song Kanye West has ever recorded was 2004's "Jesus Walks"?

Wallace was a visionary, a man who believed that hip-hop could not just complement pop music, it could become pop music. He approached his work with passion and innovation, and became a principal figure in American pop culture even before his untimely passing. Wallace's death seems like it was yesterday...but his influence is still felt today.

Elder Statesman

Former US Senator Robert Stafford, a prominent "New England Republican," passes away at 93.

You Dropped A Bomb On Me

The U.N. Security Council decides to impose economic sanctions on Iran in response to the country's efforts to develop a nuke. More from National Review and the Washington Times.

The 15% Rule

So, how did the percentage of voters who backed the Republican candidate for governor in Massachusetts drop from 50% in 2002 (when Mitt Romney won) to 35% in 2006 (when Kerry Healey lost)?

Obviously, Bay State dissatisfaction with Romney played a major role, just as American dissatisfaction with George H. W. Bush resulted in his garnering only 37 percent of the vote in the 1992 Presidential election (he received 53 percent of the vote in the 1988 election). Such dissatisfaction can clearly be traced to the left-libertarian Bay State's discomfort with Romney's social conservatism, which became more pronounced as the state moved further to the left on issues such as same-sex marriage.

Many Bay Staters have little use for social views considered "right-wing" or "ultra-conservative"; thus, while they clearly believed that Romney was far superior to his 2002 Democrat opponent, they were never fully on board with him. After Romney denounced the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling authorizing same-sex marriage, the Bay State's skepticism towards Romney became full-fledged contempt; when Romney decided not to run for re-election in December 2005, his lieutenant governor, Healey, became the target of such hatred (despite the fact that her social views were more in line with those of the electorate as a whole).

Healey's association with the supposed "right-wing demagogue" Romney doomed her candidacy and guaranteed a Democrat general-election win. No wonder Deval Patrick felt so confident about his chances for victory.

As Romney leaves the state and prepares to run for President in 2008, Democrat strategists will try to figure out a way to make large segments of the American electorate view him as negatively as Massachusetts does. However, one wonders if they realize that many Americans will love him precisely because the Bay State hates him.

UPDATE: The Boston Globe's war on Romney continues. 

Insane Asylum

The all-Democrat Massachusetts Congressional delegation makes plans to pander to the moonbats. Lord love a duck...

UPDATE: More from the Washington Post and New York Times.

Bringing Out The Dead

Another member of the Taliban is killed in Afghanistan. More from Captain's Quarters and the Washington Times.

The Heat Is On

Republican Congressman Virgil Goode outrages liberals by suggesting that failure to reform U. S. immigration laws will lead to widespread religious conflict. I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh's assertion (on his December 22 broadcast) that this guy is merely saying out loud what a lot of Americans are thinking...

UPDATE: The full text of the letter. Plus, more from the Boston Herald.

A Man In Full

A black professor at liberal MIT says the school is a bastion of bigotry.

The Breakthrough

Secretary of State Condi Rice says that despite continued racial problems, the United States is ready to elect a black President. The only question is, will it be a black Democrat or a black Republican who achieves that goal? More from Jeff Jacoby. 

The Measure Of A Man

Over the past few weeks, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe have published stories suggesting that Mitt Romney's status as a truly conservative Republican is in question. In a truly insidious fashion, these stories have pushed the idea that Romney is little more than a Republican John Kerry, an opportunist who will say and do anything to get elected.

It's hilarious to witness the mainstream media attempt to demonize Romney as an insincere conservative after years of seeing him depicted as a right-wing extremist during his term as governor of Massachusetts. However, it's also a little bit sad.

The anti-Romney stories all have two central themes: that his "shifts" on political issues are based purely on expediency, and that Romney positioned himself as a moderate in Massachusetts but is now attempting to pass himself off as a conservative in the rest of the country.

As the new Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick, would say, why can't we put our cynicism down? Why do we automatically assume that Romney is lying when he says he has had a change of heart on abortion?

It's dishonest to accuse Romney of being dishonest when it comes to his attitude about abortion; attacking Romney for insincerity ignores the fact that many folks undergo sincere conversions on such "hot-button" social issues. It wasn't all that long ago when I promoted the view that the Republican Party should essentially become a pro-choice party. This was, of course, prior to September 11, an event that, if nothing else, reinforced for me the value and importance of human life, including the life of the unborn.

Certainly, there are millions of people whose views have changed on abortion, same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, capital punishment and other issues of the day. Are they all insincere in their new views as well?

It's hard to believe that some on the right are now suspicious of Romney as a result of the mainstream media's attacks. Romney fought the good fight during his four years as governor, waging war against the excesses of the Bay State's liberal culture. He fought for taxpayers, pro-lifers and opponents of judicial activism, winning some battles, losing others, but never giving up the fight. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a David Souter Republican, and it is irresponsible to portray him as such.

If elected, Romney could become the most effective Republican President since Ronald Reagan. The question is, will he even get the chance to serve and to lead? Or will the combination of liberal-media scorn and conservative-activist suspicion sabotage his shot?

UPDATE: More on Romney and his 2008 team.

SECOND UPDATE: From the Manchester Union-Leader and the Concord Monitor. Plus, Romney reportedly plans to make it official next month. More from the Globe and Jon Keller.

THIRD UPDATE: Romney vs. McCain.

Back In The Day

In the fall of 2000, Rush Limbaugh predicted that George W. Bush would defeat Al Gore in the Presidential election by the same wide margin that Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter twenty years earlier. Limbaugh reasoned that the American electorate, sickened by Clinton-era scandals, would be reluctant to essentially grant Clinton a third term by promoting his Vice President to the top spot.

As we all know, Bush's victory was much, much closer than Reagan's 1980 win. Limbaugh underestimated the differences between America in 1980 and America in 2000--differences that could affect the result of the 2008 election.

In November of 1980, most Americans clearly felt that liberalism, as a philosophy, was a complete failure. Liberal policies had resulted in a stagnant national economy, racial tension in major cities, and an incomprehensible foreign policy. Reagan was seen as the antidote to Carter's poison; the electorate felt that Reagan would restore common sense to the incoherent mess that was Carter-era Washington.

By November 2000, however, fewer Americans were convinced of the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism. In fact, largely as a result of widespread "progressive" revisionist history concerning the Reagan years, coupled with the strengthening of identity politics and the relentless demonization of figures such as Newt Gingrich, a significant portion of the electorate regarded conservatism as intellectually suspicious. Between 1989 and 2000, the left successfully pushed the idea that the right in general, and Reagan in particular, bore responsibility for all racial, gender and economic inequity in the United States--thus convincing large numbers of Americans that, if elected, George W. Bush would return the country to the "bad old days."

Bush realized the effectiveness of the left's propaganda against Reagan and Gingrich, which is why he pushed the "compassionate conservatism" theme so aggressively in his first Presidential campaign. "Compassionate conservatism" was a preemptive strike against the left, an effort to undercut the "progressive" image of the Republican Party as anti-poor, anti-woman and anti-people of color. It was a fairly effective slogan--but as the closeness of the 2000 election indicated, it wasn't effective enough.

When Limbaugh predicted a Bush blowout, he didn't take into account how many Americans had been propagandized into being suspicious of all things conservative. The closeness of the election shouldn't have been a surprise; thanks to eleven years of intense anti-Republican propaganda, Gore entered the race on a much firmer footing than Carter did two decades before.

Cultural contempt for the right was a lingering cold in 2000; now, it's a full-on fever. Anti-Bush sentiment, stoked by the war in Iraq, will play a major role in the 2008 election; even though Bush won't be on the ticket, his legacy will be. The left will pound away at one central theme: that the '08 GOP nominee will be nothing more than a "warmongering," "mean-spirited," "Christianist" Bush clone. The Democrats will advance the notion that to elect another Republican after "eight years of Bush-Cheney" is to hasten the downfall of Western civilization. The Republican candidate will be depicted as a political Antichrist, a mix of the worst elements of Reagan, Bush and Nixon. Left-wing blogs will assert that the GOP's choice will seek to make permanent the "fascism" of the Bush "regime."

The 2008 election will undoubtedly surpass the 2000 race in terms of closeness and bitterness. The propaganda-fueled anti-Republican sentiment that almost prevented Bush from becoming President is even more intense than it was back then; if the Republicans don't find an effective way--and an effective candidate--to counteract such contempt, the Democrats will end the decade in dominance.

Holy War

The mainstream media's repugnant assault on Mitt Romney continues.

UPDATE: More from the AP.

Out Of Africa

Am I wrong to believe that Mass. Gov.-Elect Deval Patrick should cancel his upcoming vacation in South Africa?

I know Patrick planned his vacation long before winning the election, but the new governor should keep his priorities in order. With just two weeks to go before he is officially sworn in, Patrick should focus all of his energy on how to improve the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. His mind should be wholly devoted to preparing to take control of the state.

Did Patrick go on a week-long vacation before studying for the bar exam? Why do I get the sense that he obsessively prepared for that exam? And why do I get the sense that he should likewise obsessively prepare himself for the multiple responsibilities of governing?

Patrick has condemned outgoing Gov. Mitt Romney for his absenteeism.  By heading  out for fun and frolic in South Africa instead of buckling down and making final preparations for the beginning of his term, isn't Patrick being a just a little bit hypocritical?

UPDATE: More on what happens when Patrick comes back.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the AP, Boston Herald, Boston Globe, Scott Allen Miller and New York Times.

THIRD UPDATE: A new Cabinet pick for Patrick.

Regressive Progressives

The NAACP and the ACLU wage war on colorblind law in Michigan. More from the Detroit News.

Identity Politics

Sometime within the next thirty years, we may witness the political equivalent of a civil war in the United States.

This war, if it happens, will literally pit brother against brother, in the sense that it will pit older blacks still wedded to the belief that they are victims against younger blacks who believe that racism is no longer an obstacle to success. In short, it will pit those who see themselves as African-Americans against those who see themselves as simply Americans.

Younger blacks are no longer reflexively loyal to the Democrat Party and the "old-school" vision of race in the United States. While they certainly haven't embraced the Republicans yet, it's not out of the realm of possibility that more and more blacks could see the merits of the GOP; after all, who would have thought a generation ago that we would even see Republican groups at historically black colleges and universities?

With black achievement in American business, politics and entertainment at an all-time high, it'll be increasingly difficult to convince younger blacks that racism in this country is anywhere near as bad as it was fifty years ago--the pretense upon which the political left operates (witness the "progressive" reaction to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina). Younger blacks are more independent-minded than ever before--which is likely to cause conflict with older blacks, who still tend to believe that racism is rampant.

Watching the political and cultural consequences of this clash will be fascinating. Finally, we will have a thorough examination of what it means to be black in America. For years, most blacks have been primarily concerned with how white people view them. A generation ago, that was certainly understandable, considering the institutionalized racism of the age. Now, however, changing social circumstances dictate that blacks begin to focus on how they view themselves.

Do we view ourselves as Americans, woven into the very fabric of this country? Or do we continue to view ourselves as eternal outsiders (or as Malcolm X once put it, "victims of Americanism")? Younger blacks are clearly beginning to embrace the former vision, while older blacks continue to embrace the latter worldview. This is a generation gap unlikely to be bridged.

Remember that famous scene in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner when Sidney Poitier tells his father, "You see yourself as a colored man...but I see myself as a man?" Within the next thirty years, we could see a political fight between those who think like the father and those who think like the son. This fight, if it comes to pass, will be bitter, raw, painful, exhausting. However, the results of this fight will ultimately be beneficial for blacks...and for America as a whole.

UPDATE: Could former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele play a role in breaking up the Democrats' monopoly on black voters?

Overnight Celebrity

The future of Barack Obama.

Green Pastures

Has Boston lost its status as the capital of Irish America?

Even as recently as a decade ago, Boston was still identified in the national culture as an exclusively Irish town. The Bay State's capital was perceived as a de facto territory of Ireland; in the American consciousness, the city was a place where the sons and daughters of Irish immigrants dominated the fields of business, education, public service and the arts.

Today, it's difficult to consider Boston an "Irish" city. As a result of numerous social trends, Boston has lost most of its Irish identity. With the exception of certain Irish-American politicians, the city's "Irish stronghold" is now in the suburbs.

It's often been asserted that post-busing "white flight" in the 1970s accounted for the reduction in Boston's Irish population, but that is not entirely the case. Many Irish-Americans, concerned about the quality of and turmoil in Boston's public schools, continued to live in the city while enrolling their children in private and parochial schools, often working multiple jobs to pay the tuition bills. However, as property taxes and crime escalated, those families were forced to flee the city.

Irish-Americans have filled the suburbs (or in some cases, have left the state altogether) while newcomers from other states and immigrants from other countries have made the capital city their home. Other than a handful of Irish pubs, and neighborhoods such as West Roxbury and parts of Brighton and Dorchester, one is hard-pressed to find an "Irish identity" in Boston anymore. Even South Boston, once considered the most Irish city in Boston, has changed radically.

Traditionally, Boston was an Irish enclave, but that tradition has long since ended. A combination of political, economic and social forces caused many Irish-Americans to leave the city for regions with little crime, better schools and a less hectic environment. Boston is still considered "institutionally" Irish for various reasons, but the reality is that the city no longer has one central ethnic identity.

As to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing? It depends on your politics. For years, progressives bemoaned the Irish "domination" of Boston, believing that the city's majority conspired to sabotage the ambitions of nonwhites. The left believed that only by making Boston more "diverse" could the city truly live up to its democratic, egalitarian ideals. Thus, progressives are thrilled that the city is no longer identifiably Irish.

For those of us who don't feel that Irish-Americans in Boston were a monolithically mean-spirited bunch, the changes to the city's demographics should neither be celebrated nor condemned. The reduction in Boston's Irish population was inevitable given the political and cultural changes of the last four decades; what has happened to Boston is similar to what has happened to other major American cities. It's impossible to prevent certain demographic shifts from taking place. It is possible to hope that those who have made Boston their home work just as hard, dream just as big, and achieve just as much as their Irish-American predecessors did.