Unpleasant Truths

The Today Show, July 10th

The Matt Lauer, MSM, Inside the Beltway show has performed yet again.

Why is Obama's popularity down, Lauer asked of Dee Dee Myers and Pat Buchanan early this morning.

Myers:  I'm 100% defending Obama and his actions, blah blah blah.

Buchanan:  The Stim is a failure and we need more tax cuts blah blah blah.

None in this little gab session, of course, approached the reality of what is really happening.  The assumption, beyond question, is that if Obama's numbers are down it's because his actions are "too liberal."  In order to recover, the president needs to move toward a more "centrist" (!?!?!) position and embrace, among other things, further cuts in payroll taxes.  Myers:  status quo, he's (we've) got problems.  Buchanan:  move right.  Yawn.

Not entirely, of course, but I cannot help but believe that our president is losing support because he is, slowly but surely, becoming a huge disappointment to the left--to those who significantly helped him get elected.  There's no need here to tick off the ways in which he (the president) has failed in his promises, and "incrementalized" his way into a huge mess--a larger mess than he inherited.

The big, bold promises of the campaign are nowhere to be found.  Equality for the LGBT community, the rule of law, the ending of Bush-era state secrets?  All have fallen flat.  I'm past "just wait and see."  I'm to "get with it, sir."

If I was asked, this day, whether or not I "supported" what Obama has done so far, how would I answer?  It would depend on how nuanced the questions were, of course.  A flat "support" or "not support" would be difficult (and a meaningless stand-alone question).  Is he better than Bush?  Maybe 1,000%  Are his actions helpful?  Only sometimes.  Is he becoming encompassed by the "Beltway Bubble?"  Almost certainly.  Is he being led by the nose by traditional Wall Street thinking?  Yep.

How disappointing.  What tremendous opportunities have already been lost.  How many more will there be?

Coulter

This is the last thing I'll ever say about her, and I won't repeat her name.

I don't know who this person is, and I sometimes don't think she does either.  Otherwise clear-headed pundits are constantly shocked at her verbiage and behavior.  And, of course, this impels them to write about it.

This means more ink spilled over her and feeds her growing media empire, making her (I'm sure) a multimillionaire.

So what?  Can anybody with even a modicum of sense take her seriously?  I don't see how.  Simply being outrageous is her business model, and she has found she can draw more attention by being outrageous from the far right wing than she could from the left.  What does she actually believe?  Nobody knows--probably not even her.

Apparently there's some new outrage over something she's said about the murder of Dr. Tiller.

It was outrageous.

I'm shocked.

And, by the way:  if American conservatives want to be taken seriously as a sober, thinking movement in the American framework, they're going to have to eliminate voices like hers from their litany of opinion.

Guns and gun ownership

In a perfect world, I agree with those on the side of limiting ownership and sale of guns, and absolutely support bans on assault rifles.

The sad truth, though, is that America is awash in guns; we probably have as many weapons as people, maybe more.  It is simply not realistic to talk about any significant effort to limit gun ownership.  People who own them are far too intent on keeping them and any effort to seriously limit them will run aground each and every time.

As with other "absolute divide" issues (like abortion), it is difficult to see how this cultural divide can be bridged.  As a rural resident it is fascinating to observe the fervor with which gun owners cherish their weapons.  I travel frequently to Chicago, and it is equally fascinating to observe urban-Americans hold and espouse the opposite attitude.

(Full disclosure:  I own four guns myself, three of which are collector's German Lugars I own as investments, and which have more than doubled in value in the ten to fifteen years I have owned them.  I do not shoot them and to do so would lessen their value.)

We need rational policy on guns, but any policy must take into consideration the obvious fact of current ownership and accept, however reluctantly, that mass ownership of weapons in this country is not going to change.  The "culture war" the screeching Right proclaims is surely a fiction, but an attempt to limit gun ownership would be one way to make it a reality.

Iranian Elections

The Mullahs overplayed their hand. They are religious leaders but they don't appear to have much understanding of political realities.  Maybe Ahmadinejad did win (even though I doubt it), but certainly not by the margins reported.  While I wish no deaths or injuries to the Iranian public (thinking specifically of young Iranians who will be at the forefront of the opposition), my hopeful (and probably naive) mind thinks back to the late '80s and early '90s in Eastern Europe.

This all reinforces a pet theory of mine:  true democracy is evolutionary.  When stomachs are full and personal safety is assured (see Maslow's Hierarchy), people want a say in how their lives are managed by their governments and democracy, in fits and starts, erupts.  This is probably not yet true in rural Iran, but seems to be in Tehran and other cities. We might be witnessing the start of something remarkable.

Update:  All you need to know about the Iranian elections is here.