Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: On The Web

Spider-Man 3 sets a new box office record. More from the New York Times.

Alternative History

Should libertarian conservatives have joined the civil rights movement in the 1960s?

Ask any Republican about the one negative political stereotype they would like to see eliminated, and they're bound to say it's the perception of the GOP as a hotbed of racial bigotry. Most Republicans feel that the values and principles of the Republican Party are applicable to any individual regardless of race, color or creed, and despise the fact that for four decades, the GOP has been caricatured as a repository of racial reactionaries.

That stereotype, of course, was created during the debate over the 1964 Civil Rights Act; despite the essential role that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen played in the passage of the bill, the party's image on the civil rights question was harmed by Arizona Senator--and then-Presidential candidate--Barry Goldwater's decision not to support the bill on libertarian grounds. While Goldwater did not personally harbor antiblack views, his actions were perceived as giving a covert thumbs-up to segregationists--a perception that quickly, and permanently, spread to the GOP as a whole.

It's strange to think about it now, but Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act wasn't really considered out of the mainstream at the time. There were quite a few people on the libertarian Right who, while not harboring prejudiced views, nevertheless felt that the principle of freedom of association should not be interfered with in any way, and that the Act represented an unconstitutional threat to that principle. The Left effectively characterized these views as carefully concealed bigotry, thus setting the stage for the present political scenario wherein large numbers of African-Americans won't even think about voting for a Republican.

What would have happened if the "freedom of association" Right saw things differently? What would have happened if they viewed the Civil Rights Act not as a threat, but as an opportunity?

One wishes that the 1960s libertarian Right would have viewed the Civil Rights Act as a mechanism to advance individual freedom. Individual freedom--the core of libertarianism, the core of conservatism, the core of America--is protected by the Act; properly interpreted, the Act prevents the individual from having his God-given rights violated as a consequence of a mere fluke of birth. 

The Act should have been embraced by the libertarian Right as a tool to advance the individual freedom of all Americans. The 1960s libertarian Right was obviously skeptical of the Act, and of the civil rights movement as a whole; some libertarian conservatives believed that the movement was merely a front for Communism. (This is why the debate over making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a federal holiday was so controversial in the early 1980s; figures such as Jesse Helms opposed giving King such an honor on the grounds that, in Helms' view, King failed to do enough to root out elements of the movement that were sympathetic to the goals of Communism.) However, if libertarian conservatives had allied themselves with the civil rights movement, wouldn't their influence have been powerful enough to nullify the influence of those in the movement who were not anti-Communist?

The failure of libertarian conservatives to support the Civil Rights Act and back the civil rights movement represents the ultimate missed opportunity. If they had joined the cause, they would have prevented the Left from successfully propagandizing African-Americans against the Right. Perhaps, by preventing the mass movement of African-Americans into the Democrat camp, they could have prevented the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter and quite possibly the 1992 election of Bill Clinton; they almost certainly could have prevented the controversial conclusion to the 2000 election, because George W. Bush would have completely blown out Al Gore had Bush received at least thirty percent of the black vote.

There's no way to turn back the clock, and one certainly can't change the past. Yet we must recall what happened back then--and lament the shadow that was cast. 

In Praise Of Politics?

Cal Thomas on the successes and failures of the religious right.

Checkmate

The Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi declares that President Bush is smarter than everyone thinks, especially when it comes to outfoxing the Democrats on the Iraq War.

Keeping The Faith

Could Mitt Romney's appearance today at Pat Robinson's university help him woo evangelical voters? More from the Washington Post and Boston Globe.

The Darwin Awards

You just knew the mainstream press would attack the GOP over the "revelation" that three no-hoper Republican Presidential candidates don't believe in evolution. (Of course, the three no-hopers deserve to be criticized, because they fell for Chris Matthews' trap question in the first place; they should have known that Matthews is the kind of guy who believes all Republicans are "anti-science" religious rubes.) More from David Broder.

UPDATE: More from the New York Times.

Enough Already

OK, Washington Post. We understand you guys don't like the Iraq War. We understand you would like President Bush to pull out. But do you really have to overdo it like this?

UPDATE: At least the paper is honest about the problems facing the new Democrat majority in Congress.

"Edu-tainment"

Regardless of whether the Republican Party wins or loses the 2008 Presidential election, it may be time to reevaluate the role that talk radio plays in GOP politics--and in the conservative movement as a whole.

It's generally acknowledged that conservative talk radio (especially Rush Limbaugh's broadcast) helped to lay the foundation for the Republican Party's success in the 1994 Congressional midterm elections, as well as the GOP's two Presidential victories in 2000 and 2004. Of course, talk radio couldn't prevent the GOP from failure on certain occasions; Limbaugh was unable to convince a plurality of the American people not to vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and conservative talkers weren't able to prevent the electorate from abandoning the GOP in the 2006 Congressional midterm elections.

In an era of increasing anti-conservatism--from academia, from the entertainment industry, from Democrat Party leaders, from the "establishment" press--it is extremely important that prominent conservative hosts place a greater emphasis on explaining the logic and wisdom of key conservative ideas. If they don't explain these ideas, who will?

While conservative talkers are obligated to entertain, they cannot ignore the need to educate listeners as well. Prominent hosts should always keep in mind that there are listeners who don't understand how income tax cuts stimulate the economy, who are unaware of the moral and ethical arguments against embryonic stem-cell research and late-term abortion, and who are unfamiliar with non-liberal arguments concerning the Iraq War. They must address these issues in a matter that will enlighten their listeners.

Right-leaning hosts have to confront the reality that there are many Americans who don't know the first thing about the central tenets of conservatism. In fact, so many Americans are unaware of the key concepts of conservatism that if Ronald Reagan were running in 2008, he'd likely lose due to large segments of the electorate being unable to grasp the fundamental elements of his platform.

Over the next decade, prominent conservative hosts must develop effective ways of combining entertainment with education. These hosts must recognize that they now have the duty William F. Buckley Jr. had for many years--the duty of intelligently and persuasively explaining the concepts of conservatism to audiences not familiar with such ideas. These hosts will play a key role in determining whether the GOP and the conservative movement remain viable over the next ten years. In short, they've got the whole political world in their hands.

Timecop

Sen. Hillary Clinton tries to undo the past. Lord love a duck... More from the Washington Post.

Battle Royale

If ten Republican Presidential candidates get into a debate, and no one is around to watch, do they make a sound? More from the New York Times, Fred Barnes, Peggy Noonan, Howie Carr, Scott Allen Miller, the Washington Times and Michelle Malkin.

Meeting Of The Minds

Secretary of State Condi Rice meets her counterpart in Syria. More from the New York Times.

Rocket Man

Former astronaut Walter Schirra passes away at 84. More from the AP. 

The Watchmen

Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama receives Secret Service protection. More from the AP and Booker Rising.

What's The Matter With You?

Human Events on media "watchdog" David Brock.

Train In Vain

Are conservative bloggers more interested in opinion-making than activism?

Deep Rising

Was De La Soul's 3 Feet High and Rising the first true hip-hop album?

Obviously, the answer is no--hip-hop had been around for at least a decade prior to the album's 1989 release. Yet a case could the made that the answer is actually yes, in the sense that Rising was the first album to demonstrate that, at its best, hip-hop was in fact an art form. 

The Long Island trio's debut album was one of the most innovative of its era--or any era, for that matter. Transcending the boundaries of "urban music," hip-hop, and jazz, Rising set a standard for creative excellence that only A Tribe Called Quest's The Low End Theory could ultimately match.

What made Rising stand out from the hip-hop pack was its sense of intelligent humor--not the blood-soaked street sarcasm that could be found on the "gangsta rap" albums of the age, but the cerebral, crisp hilarity of such songs as "Jenifa Taught Me," "A Little Bit of Soap," "Potholes in My Lawn" and "Buddy." While the album did occasionally venture into serious territory ("Ghetto Thang," "Say No Go"), the album is defined by its levity. 

Rising was also notable for its creative use of sampling; De La Soul used the work of Michael Jackson, Steely Dan, Hall & Oates, Barry White and others to create a unique aural experience. The group set a standard for the skillful use of sampling in hip-hop; it's hard to imagine P. Diddy making a name for himself through effective sampling if De La hadn't paved the way.

Despite the success of "Me, Myself & I" as a single, no one really knew what to make of the group. It became convenient for the media to label De La hip-hop "hippies," even if such a description made no sense. What delighted De La's fans--and irritated their critics--was their refusal to adhere to any sort of hip-hop convention; they simply made music, and anybody who didn't like their product was free to listen to a far less talented performer.

Unfortunately, Rising was so innovative that the group could never top their first achievement. 1991's De La Soul is Dead was an impressive work in its own right, but it was burdened by a painful self-consciousness; the group desperately wanted to move away from the false "hippie" image, but it was unclear what they were moving towards. The spirit of innovation was still there, but they seemingly restricted that spirit in an attempt to avoid further accusations of "hippiedom." 1993's Buhloone Mindstate was, sadly, one of the worst hip-hop albums of all time, an incoherent mess filled with awful songs about shady album-promotion tactics and bizarre ethnic-pride declarations. Their creative poverty lasted until the early-2000s, when they released the first two albums of a planned "Art Official Intelligence" trilogy; while they were able to regain a position of prominence in American pop-culture, they weren't able to recapture the momentum they had in the late-1980s.

De La Soul will always be associated with the genius of their first album; perhaps they set a standard so high that even they couldn't match it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, however. 3 Feet High and Rising remains a work of unlimited ambition, extraordinary skill and creative flawlessness. Listening to the album is like watching the performance of an athlete in his or her prime; it's the easy experience of excellence.

Radio Daze

Could the current ratings woes affecting a Boston talk-radio station ultimately lead to that station going out of business?

Just Say No

President Bush puts the kibosh on Democrat efforts to force a premature end to the Iraq War. More from the Washington Post and New York Times.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Times, Washington Post, Booker Rising, New York Times, Mark Noonan, Michelle Malkin and the Weekly Standard.

Circular Firing Squad

Carl Bernstein casts his investigative eye upon Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Rated R

Will the Virginia Tech massacre cause Hollywood to think twice about producing ultra-violent horror films? (Naaah...)

Run And Cut

William F. Buckley argues that the war in Iraq is sapping energy from the Republican Party.

UPDATE: Dennis Prager on the war.

Two Sides To Every Story

Is George W. Bush more like Bill Clinton than any of us would care to admit?

No, Bush hasn't had his way with any interns or ignored the threat of Islamofascism, but Bush and Clinton are alike in that their political opponents regard them as being devoid of any redeeming value. Talk to your average Republican and you'll hear Clinton condemned as the worst piece of crap ever to shuck and jive his way into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; talk to your average Democrat and you'll hear Bush castigated as a dopey, drunk, Bible-thumping frat boy who scammed his way into the White House.

Clinton and Bush are both symbols of the extreme partisanship that has gripped our country over the past fifteen years. Those who consider themselves Bush boosters will never understand the mentality of those who cherish Clinton, and vice versa.

Why are both men so despised by their political opposites? Mostly, it has to do with the way both men are perceived. Republicans see Clinton as the embodiment of let-it-all-hang-out, no-moral-standards-of-any-kind Left. Even Republicans who don't consider themselves particularly religious feel that there should be some lines of demarcation clarifying what is, and what is not, acceptable behavior; they view Clinton as the man who led the effort to obliterate those lines.

Likewise, Democrats view Bush as the symbol of all that they despise about the Right: the perceived love of wealth, the perceived desire to create a "United States of Jesus," the perceived contempt for intellectual pursuit. The Left had its issues with Ronald Reagan, but they could only go so far in their condemnation of the 40th President: they couldn't accuse him of being inarticulate or attack him for having been born of prestige. (Sure, they labeled him a racist, a hater of the poor and a homophobe, but they'll do that to any Republican.) However, "Dubya" pushes all of the Left's buttons: how can they have even token respect for a cowboy Christian from a clan with cash?

The Left often accuses Bush of being stubborn, of refusing to listen to alternative viewpoints, of narrow-minded, my-way-or-the-highway pseudo-thinking. Of course, the exact same thing can be said about Clinton. While he did borrow a few issues from the Right, Clinton aggressively pursued the liberal political agenda, launching an ultimately botched effort to establish universal health care and nominating staunch "progressives" Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Clinton rode a centrist image to victory in 1992, but he made no secret of his loyalty to liberalism. It's hard to fault Bush for being an "ideologue" when his predecessor was just the same.

Bush and Clinton are also loathed by their political opposites because of the belief that neither man really "deserved" to be President. Conservatives never really came to terms with Clinton's 1992 victory: according to the Right, Clinton didn't really win the election so much as George H. W. Bush lost it. Conservatives have always viewed, and will always view, Clinton as The Man Who Got Lucky; there's no way he could have ever beaten Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon. The Right has never deviated from its belief that were it not for Ross Perot and the perception that Bush 41 was indifferent to the concerns of those affected by the early-1990s recession, Clinton would have remained in Arkansas for the rest of his life.

The Left similarly regards Bush as a man who should have never made it out of Texas (or his mother's womb, for that matter). Liberals have never gotten over the 2000 election controversy--and they never will get over it, either. Remember the early days of the blogosphere, when “progressives” would refer to Bush as the "pResident?" The Left's contempt for Bush stems from its inability to accept the outcome of Bush v. Gore, and its refusal to even consider the argument that the controversy had to end for the good of the nation. (Their hatred for Bush also stems from their decision to ignore the fact that if Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he would have had the Electoral College win locked up before the Florida fracas.) Bush will always be just a thief to the Left, even if that argument is bereft of heft.

"Bubba" and "Dubya" aren't that much different. Conservatives will always hate the former because they feel he screwed the Constitution; liberals will always loathe the latter because they feel he screwed the country. Their legacies will inspire endless debate--but who can question their ability to inspire hate?