Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Axis Of Evil

Resident Evil: Extinction tops the charts.

High Praise

Popular televangelist Rex Humbard passes away at 88.

High Spirits

Actress Alice Ghostley passes away at 81.

A Checkered Past

An odd bit of trivia: it was 55 years ago today that Richard Nixon delivered his famous "Checkers" speech.

Silent Treatment

Artist Marcel Marceau passes away at 84.

Can We Defeat Her?

William Kristol, John Fund, Bill O'Reilly, Mark Steyn, Linda Chavez and Ed Rollins on Hillary Clinton.

Wordly Wise

I think National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru is a great writer--but it probably wasn't the wisest thing in the world for him to say that "...[as] the Republican Party has gotten more socially conservative, its voter base has become lower in income"...

UPDATE: More from Ponnuru.

National Tragedy

Future generations will be surprised to learn that, despite appointing the most diverse Cabinet in American history, President Bush failed in his effort to reestablish the Republican Party as a viable political option for African-American voters. Bush’s inability to convince large numbers of black voters that the GOP was still the “party of Lincoln” ranks as one of the most prominent failures of his Presidency. However, that failure was largely due to circumstances beyond his control.

One obviously cannot ignore Bush’s own errors in this regard. For example, his February 2000 appearance at Bob Jones University was an act of spectacular political tone-deafness; he simply didn’t realize how poorly his appearance at the controversial school would come across to voters of color. By agreeing to take the stage at BJU, Bush allowed Democrats to gain a propagandistic advantage—an advantage that resulted in Bush receiving only eight percent of the African-American vote in the November election.

However, Bush’s efforts to reach out to voters of color were arguably doomed to fail from the outset. Bush apparently made the mistake that countless other Republicans had made before him: assuming that commonality between African-Americans and Republicans on social issues would mean that African-American voters would be amenable to the overall Republican message.

Yes, most African-Americans agree with the GOP on such issues as abortion, traditional marriage and school vouchers. However, most African-American voters are disdainful of the GOP’s economic vision—and so long as this is the case, the GOP will never receive more than an infinitesimal amount of African-American support.

It is a sad reality that most African-Americans have been taught (thanks to relentless Democrat propaganda) to be suspicious of the capitalist system. Over the past four decades, Democrats have been quite effective at exploiting class envy, convincing African-American voters that wealth is unfairly distributed in this country—and that those who are of means are directly responsible for the problems faced by those who are not of means.

Having taught voters of color to despise the rich, the Democrats subsequently convinced large numbers of African-American voters that, despite their agreements with the Republicans on social issues, they cannot trust the GOP because it is the “party of the rich”—i.e., the party of those who have exploited people of color.

It drives Republicans crazy that Democrats have been so successful at peddling this message. Yet the power of this dishonest message endures, ensuring that every four years, African-American voters will turn out in droves to support the Left’s anointed candidate.

With the exception of Bush, Jack Kemp, Ken Mehlman and a few others, most Republicans have reluctantly accepted the reality that the divide between the GOP and voters of color will remain for some time to come. The only African-American votes the GOP has received over the past forty years have come from those already disinclined to support the Democrats for ideological reasons.

The only way the GOP can attract more African-American support in the immediate future is by moving to the left on economic issues—an act that would destroy the party by rendering it indistinguishable from the Democrats. Republicans believe that capitalism works—that tax cuts stimulate the economy, that people should keep more of what they earn, and that wealth is the result of diligence and not deviousness. Adopting the soak-the-rich ethos of the Left would appeal to voters of color who regard the American economic system as unjust, but it would also turn Presidential elections into pointless contests between two versions of the Democrat Party.

The GOP has, for all intents and purposes, decided to “cut and run” from the effort to attract more support from voters of color.  Republicans have looked on in frustration as Bush’s attempts to appeal to African-American voters have been consistently rebuffed, due to the perception by those voters that Bush represents a party that stands for economic injustice. It is unlikely that the GOP will continue these failed “outreach” efforts in the future.

It’s sad that, with regard to African-American voters, the political status quo will remain for years to come. Today, voters of color find themselves compelled to stick with the Democrats—the party of Robert Byrd, the party of J. William Fulbright, the party of Don Imus—because they have been led to believe that the Republicans don’t care about them. They’ve been lied to on a grand scale—and that lie has led to an inconvenient political truth.

MoveOver

President Bush vs. the far-left. More from Jeff Jacoby and National Review.

Driven Crazy

Another bizarre turn of events in the legal battle involving Boston talk-radio icon Howie Carr. More from the Boston Herald and Brian Maloney.

Great Communication

Tony Blankley on Ronald Reagan's lessons for today.

A Decade Of Destruction

Let me let you in a little secret: conservatives hate the 1990s.

There's a stereotype that conservatives despise the 1960s and 1970s because of the civil rights and women's rights movements. That perception was always false--the Republicans had far more credibility on civil rights then the Democrats during that period, and conservative criticism of the women's rights movement only occurred when that movement excluded the views of non-progressives. The Right definitely disliked the antiwar movement, but conservatives have generally made their peace with the 1960s and 1970s.

However, the Right's distaste for the 1990s will linger for years to come. During that decade, conservatives saw the near-complete reversal of the political and cultural gains they made during the 1980s; other than 1994 midterm elections and the development of talk radio as a viable media force, the 1990s were terrible for conservatives.

In the 1980s, it appeared that the country's political and cultural climate had become stable, normal, focused on the traditional values of God, family and country. Ronald Reagan made people proud to be Americans again; he restored a sense of national dignity that had been missing in the Vietnam/Watergate/Carter era. People didn't feel ashamed of being a Christian, being pro-life, being a patriot. While the mainstream press and the Democrats threw stones at Reagan and the Republicans, those stones often bounced back and hit the GOP's tormentors in the face.

Even after George H. W. Bush replaced Reagan in the White House, conservatives still felt confident about the country. No, Bush wasn't as conservative as Reagan, but he shared Reagan's belief that America was a good and just nation. There was a sense of balance in the culture, a belief that things would generally remain healthy for the United States into the 1990s.

The 1992 election shattered that illusion. Bush was replaced by Bill Clinton, a sexually licentious, draft-dodging product of the tumultuous 1960s. Conservatives were stunned; they couldn't believe that a plurality of the electorate would embrace a man so fundamentally unlike the political legend who changed the country for the better in the 1980s.

Clinton's election was discouraging not just from a political standpoint—the sight of the liberal media's favorite politician smirking his way through his first term was enough to make Republicans physically ill—but also from a cultural one. Republicans believed—correctly—that whoever is President of the United States has a profound influence on the culture. After all, he is the ultimate role model.

Republicans admired Reagan and Bush because both men were Presidents of character, honor, decency, morality. They may have made political mistakes, but they were always Perfect Gentlemen, setting an ethical standard that was appropriate for average Americans to follow.

Clinton, on the other hand, embodied the vapidity and soullessness of his Hollywood backers. He got his way with charm and a smile; he represented nothing deep, nothing profound, nothing spiritual. He seemed to be the walking, talking embodiment of the instant-gratification-at-all-costs, if-it-feels-good-do-it mentality. It drove Republicans nuts, and made the Clinton era one of misery for the Right.

Conservatives lost so much ground in the 1990s it wasn’t funny. Just months after Clinton was sworn into office, it seemed as though no one was interested in preserving the role of faith in the public square. The controversy over abortion seemed to disappear. The dispute over judicial activism suddenly dissipated: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were confirmed with barely a peep from the Right.

Yes, Newt Gingrich emerged as the post-Reagan conservative leader in the mid-1990s, but what did he lead? Other than welfare reform and the Defense of Marriage Act, the GOP-led Congress didn’t accomplish all that much.  The party either ducked major issues (after making a lot of noise about finally dismantling quota-based public-sector affirmative action, they ultimately punted and left the issue to the federal courts) or allowed Clinton to gain the upper hand in the court of public opinion. By 1997, it was obvious that Congress had become little more than the President’s plaything.

Congress, of course, wasn’t the President’s only plaything, and the party appeared to regain momentum in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal--but by early-1999, Clinton had outfoxed the GOP once again, surviving the party’s effort to remove him from office for his perjury and obstruction of justice. After Clinton’s Senate acquittal, it was fair to characterize the GOP as the party that couldn’t shoot straight.

Looking back, one cannot blame then-Texas Governor George W. Bush for characterizing himself as a “different kind of Republican” in his bid to replace Clinton in the White House. Bush had watched from the sidelines as the GOP lost power, influence and appeal in the face of the Clinton Juggernaut. The Republicans had melted down over the course of the 1990s—and Bush had to separate himself from the party’s leadership in order to lift the party back up.

Despite the GOP’s current problems, the 2000s have been much kinder to the party than the 1990s were. Bush led the party to three consecutive Election Day wins, brought certain aspects of Reagan’s governing philosophy back to Washington, and—most importantly—demonstrated the same personal integrity that Reagan and Bush showed in the 1980s and early-1990s. Republicans may have their issues with Bush, but they’d take Dubya on his worst day over Bubba on his best.

Progressives often say they can’t understand why conservatives dislike the Clintons so much. The answer is simple: the Clintons remind conservatives of a dark time in American history—a time when flash, smiles and glamour were judged to be more important than decency, civility and modesty.  When conservatives see Bill and Hillary, they remember a time when the intellectual strength of conservative philosophy wasn’t as effective as the emotional strength of an oft-bitten lower lip. The Clintons remind conservatives of the political and cultural climate of the 1990s, when Americans relished razzle-dazzle and rejected the real deal.

Conservatives will wage an aggressive—and perhaps successful—fight to prevent Hillary from succeeding Bush in the White House. It is a fight to prevent the nightmare of the past from becoming the nightmare of the future.

Justice Of The Peace

In a surprise ruling, Maryland's (liberal) highest court refuses to strike down a 1973 law banning same-sex marriage. More from the Washington Post and Washington Times.

"We Gonna Rock Down To Electric Avenue, And Then We'll Take It Higher..."

An obnoxious Florida college student gets the shock of his life...

Flying None

Did Sally Field really have to use profanity to express her opposition to the Iraq War at the Emmy Awards? More from Michelle Malkin.

Doctored Up

Rich Lowry on Hillary Clinton's new health-care plan.

UPDATE: More from Karl Rove.

Can't Keep A Good Man Down

Alan Keyes makes his third bid for the GOP Presidential nomination.

Keep It Moving

Jed Babbin on the potential consequences of MoveOn.org's ad about Gen. David Petraeus.

Reel It In

Bill O'Reilly on Hollywood's new antiwar films.