Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: The Gold Standard

The Golden Compass opens at #1. More from the New York Times.

Back In The Day

John H. Sununu on George H. W. Bush's win in the 1988 New Hampshire primary.

Love! Valour! Compassion!

Was “compassionate conservatism” just a load of crap?

I’ll never forget how liberals immediately dismissed the very concept of compassionate conservatism when George W. Bush started emphasizing the theme in his Presidential bid. Progressives were horrified by the notion that conservative ideas could ameliorate suffering in America; they arrogantly proclaimed that only liberalism was compassionate, and that conservatives, even self-described compassionate ones like Bush, only cared about money, war and Jesus.

One of the reasons I voted for Bush in 2000 is because I wanted to see him prove the left wrong. Long before Bush emerged on the scene, I rejected the idea that only liberalism could address the needs of the less fortunate; I agreed with Bush that the ideas of the right were far superior to the left’s welfare-state strategies for “helping” the underclass.

During his first term, Bush demonstrated his commitment to compassionate conservatism through his faith-based and community initiatives, as well as other controversial measures such as the No Child Left Behind Act. While certain aspects of the bill where less than thrilling to many on the right, Bush’s support of the bill clearly stemmed from his belief that it was morally wrong to poorly educate inner-city children, and that NCLB could remedy the public-school ills that cause far too many to fall through society’s cracks. As Bush himself put it, in a January 8, 2002 speech at Boston Latin School: “The numbers for inner-city kids or impoverished--kids from impoverished families--their ability to read, or the illiteracy rate-- let me put it to you that way--is astounding. It is pitiful. It is not right for America that over 60 percent of the children in the fourth grade from impoverished families cannot read. If you can't read in the fourth grade, you're not going to read in the eighth grade. And if you can't read in the eighth, you're not going to read in high school. And if you can't read, you've got a tough life ahead of you.

“And we need to do something about it, America, and this bill does. It triples the amount of money for early reading programs, programs based upon the science of reading, not something that sounds good or feels good but something that works. There's money for teacher training. There's money for enhanced methodology. There's money that says we're going to stay focused until we teach every child to read by the third grade in America.”

NCLB was unquestionably a big-government bill—but Bush wasn’t concerned about whether the government became larger so much as he was concerned about whether the government was trying to fix intractable social problems. No Republican should have been surprised that Bush got behind NCLB; the bill, at bottom, reflected his core beliefs.

Because of 9/11 and the emergence of the War on Terror, Bush had to shift his focus away from compassionate conservatism. However, Bush’s actions in the War on Terror can be viewed as international versions of his domestic compassionate conservatism strategy: after all, what can be more compassionate than liberating people from totalitarian tyranny—and what can be more conservative than removing regimes hostile to the United States from power?

Despite Bush’s commitment to compassionate conservatism, he was unable to prevent the concept from ultimately being rejected in the court of public opinion. As war casualties mounted, some Americans began to have second thoughts about whether it was right for the US to undertake the mission of bringing democracy to countries long run by dictators. While the attempt to blame Bush for the chaos in New Orleans made no intellectual sense, the left’s propagandists successfully pushed the idea that the federal government’s response to Katrina “proved” that Bush’s compassionate conservatism was a political slogan and nothing more.

As a result, compassionate conservatism is now a somewhat discredited concept. Bush is attempting to return credibility to this idea through his attempts to mend the injuries caused by the subprime mortgage crisis, but even this initiative is unlikely to get Bush-haters to cut him the slightest bit of slack. 

Compassionate conservatism may have been a political failure, but you can’t blame Bush for doing whatever he could to make it a success. Don’t forget the way conservatism was perceived in the popular culture back in ’99-‘00: the right was regarded by liberal elites as a bunch of hard-hearted bums who scorned the poor and the working class. Bush was determined to destroy that negative image of conservatism. He was ultimately unable to do so, but the effort, while not victorious, was certainly valiant.

Wiseguy

President Bush outsmarts the Dems again.

That's Hucking Crazy!

Mike Huckabee flip-flops on illegal immigration. Well, at least he's flipping the right way. More from the New York Times.

UPDATE: A new controversy for Huckabee? More from National Review, CBSNews.com, Hugh Hewitt, Washington Post, New York Times and Red State.

Saturday Night's Main Event

It’s horrifying to think of the number of professional wresters I’ve seen live over the years who are now dead.

I went to WWE shows at the Boston Garden almost every month between late-1988 and late-1991. My first show took place on September 10, 1988: the main event was a match between Hulk Hogan and Ted DiBiase.

Both Hogan and DiBiase are still alive, but so many of the folks who headlined those shows have passed on. The October and November 1988 shows were headlined by Randy Savage vs. Bad News Brown; Brown (born Allen Coage) died last March. The December ’88, January ’89 and March ‘89 shows were headlined by Hulk Hogan vs. the Big Boss Man; Boss Man (born Ray Traylor) passed away in September 2004. Big John Studd vs. Andre the Giant headlined the May ’89 show; by 1995, both wrestlers had passed on.

The December ’89 show featured a Hulk Hogan vs. Mr. Perfect main event; Perfect (born Curt Hennig) died of cocaine-related heart failure in February 2003. January 1990’s show was headlined by The Ulimate Warrior vs. Dino Bravo; Bravo would be shot to death three years later. February’s show featured a Rick Rude-Roddy Piper main event; nine years later, Rude would be found dead of a heart attack. April’s show was headlined by Hulk Hogan vs. John “Earthquake” Tenta; cancer would claim Tenta in June 2006.

The undercards of these shows were filled with wrestlers who have since passed on: Owen Hart, Hercules Hernandez, female wrestler-turned-manager Sherri Martel. The professional wrestling death count seems endless: Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Michael “Crash Holly” Lockwood, Elizabeth Hulette, Scott “Bam Bam” Bigelow, Michael “Hawk” Hegstrand, Kerry von Erich, Brian Pillman, Brian “Crush” Adams. Too many, too soon.

It’s almost impossible to watch WWE pay-per-view shows from the mid-1980s (and even some shows from the early-2000s) without counting the number of wrestlers who have either died young or are now suffering from severe health maladies. A culture of death controls the professional wrestling industry, and I’m not sure who is to blame.

Do I believe that WWE head Vince McMahon pressured wrestlers to take risks with their health in order to become major stars? No, but in a way he didn’t have to. After Hulk Hogan became extremely popular in the early- to mid-1980s, WWE fans only wanted to see muscle-bound wrestlers in main-event positions. If you didn’t have “the look”, you weren’t going to make big money.

I’m just as guilty as anyone else in embracing this backward view. Back in the late-1980s, I would have laughed if anyone suggested that normal-sized wrestlers such as Bret “Hitman” Hart should be used as main-eventers. Not until McMahon was embroiled in a steroid scandal in the early-1990s did I begin to realize that someone could be a main-eventer without chemical enhancement.

Of course, in the years immediately following the steroid scandal, the WWE’s business plummeted, while Ted Turner-owned WCW—which featured plenty of muscled-up stars, as opposed to Vince’s newly slimmed-down main-eventers—quickly became the top wrestling promotion in the United States. Only after McMahon began promoting a more sex- and violence-filled product did WWE reclaim the American pro-wrestling throne.

Even after muscularity was (somewhat) de-emphasized in the 1990s, many wrestlers still felt pressure to have the best “look” and to take the most risks. Wrestlers popped painkillers and took muscle-enhancing drugs to maintain a competitive advantage. The result: early death for some, permanent health problems for others.

In the wake of the Benoit murder case, McMahon finds himself under severe media scrutiny once again. Congress is investigating WWE’s drug-testing practices. The mainstream media—which always regarded wrestling as stupid and backwards (in order words, the same way the media always regarded the Republican Party)—has flooded the cable zone with story after story about McMahon’s alleged lack of concern for his past and present employees.

McMahon’s no angel; he’ll tell you that himself. I was less than thrilled with McMahon after he decided to continue a May 1999 pay-per-view broadcast despite Owen Hart’s accidental death earlier in the show. McMahon’s a brilliant businessman and a marketing genius, but he’s ruthless as all hell; he’s the closest thing we have to a real-life Tony Montana.

However, I can’t go along with those who assert that McMahon is solely to blame for the fate of these dead wrestlers. There’s blood on my hands too. In fact, there’s blood on the hands of every fan who wanted wrestlers to be more muscular, who wanted main-eventers to take more unnecessary risks, who wanted more violence, more bloodshed, more brutality.

Seven years ago, LionsGate released Beyond the Mat, Barry Blaustein’s fascinating, though depressing, documentary about the turmoil and tragedy that goes on behind the scenes in the pro-wrestling business. The film was promoted as “the movie Vince McMahon doesn’t want you to see”, since McMahon believed that the picture depicted his company in a profoundly negative light. Beyond the Mat wasn’t anti-McMahon, or anti-anybody for that matter. Looking back, however, the film seemed to warn wrestling fans that if they kept on encouraging wrestlers to take more risks, tragedy would result. It seems that nobody really heeded that warning…and thus, all of us who were greedy for gore are guilty. 

I'm A Believer

David Brooks on Mitt Romney's "controversial" religion speech.

What To Do? What To Do?

Todd Domke on GOP grief in the '08 primaries.

Christmas In Fallujah

If there’s any justice in this world, they’ll be called the Greatest Generation one day.

The next time you think all hope is lost in America, remember the young men and women who have lost limbs or lives protecting us over the last six years. The best and the brightest are on our battlefields, and it is their courage and bravery that has prevented a post-9/11 terrorist attack.

Any person who’s cynical about America has simply forgotten what our heroes are accomplishing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Every generation has its stars—but those who have chosen to go to war so that we might have peace are our superstars.

Our troops have succeed against all odds—soaring heat, the constant specter of death, a lack of sympathy from the American press, the scorn of a major political party.

Speaking of politics, you have to think that these soldiers’ strong sense of patriotism was placed into their hearts by the late Ronald Reagan. Many of these warriors had Reagan as part of their earliest memories, and their desire to defend this country is clearly motivated by Reagan’s oft-stated belief that ours is a nation worth defending.

We ought to remember these soldiers’ sacrifices, especially this time of year—but the sad truth is, we often don’t. A soldier’s experience isn’t something we like to think about when we’re eating turkey and listening to jingles.

The dehydration, the endless sand, the unusual nature of a foreign land—we expect soldiers to put up with these things, and never think about what it would be like to walk in their boots. Many of us have shoved these wars into a psychological box, never to be opened unless absolutely necessary.

Americans generally like peace. We’re not comfortable with the notion that sometimes wars have to be fought to preserve peace. It’s a strange belief—and it’s also anti-historical.

It took the horrors of war to liberate us from Great Britain’s tyranny. It took the horrors of war to dismantle the machinery of slavery. It took the horrors of war to crack the foundations of totalitarianism. War in indeed hell—but some flames are even hotter.

All a soldier asks for is respect. All he or she wants is to be appreciated for the physical and psychological burdens they face.

Some of those burdens never go away. War is not pleasant; it can never be. Our soldiers have borne witness to things that shock the human conscience; many have returned with spiritual concussions that will take time to recover from.

It’s a shame that soldiers who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan—and soldiers who are still fighting—are seen by some Americans as villains. Why? Why can’t our respect for them be automatic?

There’s no draft. No one is forced to fight. Those who take up arms do so because they believe in the cause. We respected that in the past; we should continue to respect that now.

Today’s warriors define nobility. They’re every bit as noble as those who died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and both World Wars.

They have fought not only for America, not only for freedom, but for the civil and human rights of the entire world.

If you have lost blood, arms, legs, or even your life in either Afghanistan or Iraq, you are a hero on the level of Washington, Lincoln and MLK. Any person who willingly suffers pain so that others can live painlessly deserves the utmost admiration.

This Christmas, let’s not wound our soldiers anew with ingratitude. Let’s remember what they did for us, and appreciate their efforts.

We’ve witnessed six years of heroism from our troops—six years of valor, of morality, of pride, of compassion. In an era of media avarice and political cowardice, our soldiers have set new standards for excellence.

People still like to make jokes about President Bush’s 2003 “Mission Accomplished” speech. However, the sacrifices our soldiers have made in Iraq and Afghanistan must be taken seriously. They are heroes, true role models, icons of character and courage. They were only asked to serve this country with dignity. Did they accomplish that mission? Damn right they did.

A Host Of Angels

Monica Crowley on the black Democrat vote in the '08 election.

Iron Chic

James Taranto on the US vs. Iran.

UPDATE: More from John Bolton, Jed Babbin and the New York Times.

Let Me Clear My Throat

Congratulations to Boston Herald columnist Michele McPhee, who has been hired as the new early-evening talk host on Boston station WTKK-FM.

Loser!

Venezuelan voters say they don't want Hugo Chavez to be President for life. More from the New York Times.

Second, In Command

Bill Bennett as a VP nominee? Not a bad idea, Kathy Lopez...

Sign O' The Times

Will George W. Bush become America’s last Christian-conservative President?

If Rudy Giuliani receives the Republican nomination and goes on to win the Presidency next year, it’s hard to envision the GOP ever going back to the Christian-conservative template that served the party so well in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. A Giuliani victory will signal that the party can win without explicitly appealing to religious and social conservatives—and the GOP will likely heed that signal in future elections.

I always expected the GOP to one day move away from appealing to religious and social conservatives; as the country becomes increasingly secular with regard to political and cultural affairs, I figured it was only a matter of time before the GOP decided that the trend was its friend.  However, I never anticipated such a transition taking place this quickly.

Giuliani will be a conservative President—I have no doubt that he will be effective in reducing taxes, protecting the country from future attacks, and rehabilitating the wayward federal judiciary—but his will be a secular conservatism, not the religiously informed conservatism of Bush and Reagan. It will be an abrupt change—but one the country may have to get used to.

Secular conservatism is not a foreign concept in this country. Almost all of the major center-right talk hosts in the US are secular conservatives; only Dr. Laura Schlessinger truly reflects the religious-conservative worldview. The Fox News Channel—which has been accused of pro-Giuliani bias by conservative websites such as FreeRepublic.com—also reflects the secular-conservative vision.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with secular conservatism; however, secular conservatives and religious conservatives don’t always see things the same way. The two camps had a nasty fight a few years ago during the Terri Schiavo controversy; many secular conservatives felt that the government had no business trying to preserve Schiavo’s life, while many religious conservatives felt that Congress had a moral duty to intervene in the case.

Secular and religious conservatives are currently having a row over Mike Huckabee’s candidacy. Secular conservatives despise Huckabee because of his squishy record on taxes and his clear liberalism on immigration; religious conservatives defend the former Arkansas governor as a man whose commitment to protecting life and traditional marriage is rock-solid.

Huckabee certainly appeals to the same folks who supported Reagan and Bush for cultural reasons—but he will not receive the GOP nomination because he cannot rise above secular-conservative opposition. Secular conservatives (and religious conservatives like Pat Robertson) who support Giuliani have passionately, and persuasively, argued that Giuliani’s antiterrorism credentials outweigh his non-conservative stances on certain social issues; it is this argument that will likely allow Giuliani to secure the GOP nomination.

Some Christian conservatives won’t be thrilled with Giuliani as the GOP standard-bearer. I share their concerns. It will be odd to see the party move so suddenly from the Christian conservatism of Reagan and Bush to the secular conservatism of Giuliani—but this shift was inevitable anyway.

Christian conservatives have moved this country in a pro-life direction, but many new pro-lifers still have a generally secular political vision. It used to be that we had a Christian conservative right and a secular progressive left; now, it seems that we are moving towards a society with a secular conservative right and a secular progressive left. Voters now seem to be more concerned about paying mortgages than they are about protecting marriage; they’re focused on protecting their identity, not pornography on the Internet. Day-to-day economic concerns have seemingly outweighed moral issues—a change that allows a candidate like Giuliani to gain so much momentum.

This may be an irreversible shift. Morality was on the minds of those who rejected Carter in favor of Reagan; America’s social environment had become so wayward that Christian conservatives turned to Reagan to staunch the cultural bleeding. Twenty years later, religious and social conservatives horrified by the profound perversity of the Clinton-Gore administration backed Bush in an attempt to bring redemption to the White House.

Although moral issues played a central role in the 1980, 2000, and 2004 elections, rapid cultural changes have created a platform upon which a social non-conservative such as Giuliani can run for, and win, the White House. Social conservatives will not suddenly disappear; however, it appears that they have been outnumbered—not by left-wingers, but by those for whom economic and security concerns are paramount. If Giuliani becomes President, it will mark the beginning of the post-Christian-conservative era in American politics, an era in which both parties will approach issues from a fundamentally secular perspective. For those of us who thought the Christian-conservative template would not be altered so quickly, this change will be unusual.  It will also be unforgettable.