The Joylessness of the Reactionary Mind

   

"There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards" - Ian Drury

For some reason, Sully linked to this preposterous piece by Charles Murray -- I suppose that is a tautology -- which posits, among other foolishness, that "religiosity is indispensable to a major stream of artistic accomplishment."   Murray worries that in an increasingly secular world, great art will not be created because people will cease to concern themselves with the big questions about the meaning of life.  In Murray's sclerotic world view, worthwhile art largely ceased to be made in the 19th Century as secularism and nihilism have stripped life (and art) of the possibility of transcendence.  (I was amused to be reminded that Murray had put together numerical ratings of past human greatness in the arts and sciences in his book Human Accomplishment - a sort of Bill James Baseball Abstract of the western canon.)  

Murray is also concerned that our lives are too long and cushy.  As he puts it, "can a major stream of artistic accomplishment be produced by a society that is geriatric? By a society that is secular? By an advanced welfare state?"

Murray derides what he calls the "Europe Syndrome" and claims that post-World War II Europe is essentially devoid of meaningful artistic contribution:

What are the productions of visual art, music, or literature that we can be confident will still be part of the culture two centuries from now, in the sense that hundreds of European works from two centuries ago are part of our culture today? We may argue over individual cases, and agree that the number of surviving works since World War II will be greater than zero, but it cannot be denied that the body of great work coming out of post-war Europe is pathetically thin compared to Europe’s magnificent past.

Thus Murray writes off the works of writers like Primo Levy, Albert Camus, Milan Kundera, Graham Greene, Harold Pinter, Czeslaw Milosz, Samuel Beckett, Jean Paul Sartre -- none of whom evidently can compete with Homer or Virgil or Dante -- one gets the sense with Murray that literature effectively ceased before it began, as Goethe, who died in 1832, is the most modern writer to make Murray's list of top five writers in Human Accomplishment.  He ignores as well as the amazing flourishing of post-war film and popular music in Europe. Is there truly nothing of lasting value in the works of Truffaut or Fellini or the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?  One gets the sense that Murray's aesthetic are those of the perennial old fogey, a world in which all art has the musty smell of the museum piece.  

Most disturbingly -- and it is something I have seen in the works of other reactionary thinkers -- is the notion that a long, secure, and pleasant life, blessed with abundance leads to an inherently trivial existence:

The indirect indictment of the Europe Syndrome consists of the evidence that it is complicit in the loss of the confidence, vitality, and creative energy that provide a nourishing environment for great art. I blame primarily the advanced welfare state. Consider the ironies. The European welfare states brag about their lavish “child-friendly” policies, and yet they have seen plunging birth rates and marriage rates. They brag about their lavish protections of job security and benefits and yet, with just a few exceptions, their populations have seen falling proportions of people who find satisfaction in their work. They brag that they have eliminated the need for private charities, and their societies have become increasingly atomistic and anomic.

The advanced welfare state drains too much of the life from life. When there’s no family, no community, no sense of vocation, and no faith, nothing is left except to pass away the time as pleasantly as possible.

I believe this self-absorption in whiling away life as pleasantly as possible explains why Europe has become a continent that no longer celebrates greatness. When I have spoken in Europe about the unparalleled explosion of European art and science from 1400 to 1900, the reaction of the audiences has invariably been embarrassment. Post-colonial guilt explains some of this reaction—Europeans seem obsessed with seeing the West as a force for evil in the world. But I suggest that another psychological dynamic is at work. When life has become a matter of passing away the time, being reminded of the greatness of your forebears is irritating and threatening.

One is struck both by what a lousy and repetitive writer Murray is and the degree to which he is offended by the idea of people living pleasant lives.  What becomes evident is that Murray, like many right-wingers, is opposed to genuine human freedom, especially the notion of lives where people actually choose whether to get married or to have children and they do so without the fear that not doing those things will lead to them starving in the streets in their old age.  If people are embarrassed when Murray delivers his screeds about how they don't make writers like Shakespeare anymore, one gets the sense that they may be embarrassed for him and the vacuity of his numerical rankings for complex works.

Ultimately, it seems to me that anyone who has actually partaken of life -- even those of us who live in comparative ease and security -- are reminded often enough of our fragility and the contingency of our lives.  Even in a society where most of us will live to see 80, enough of our cohort will fall by the wayside, victims of disease and caprice, that reminders of our mortality are never actually that far way.  And for those of us who do not believe in an afterlife, there is the always serious question of how to live that one life that you have and to imbue it with meaning.  Great artists have and will continue to explore these issues because there is no cure for our mortality.  It is Murray's loss that he is unable to see the artistic greatness that has been out there in his own life time -- and it speaks poorly of him and his philosophy that he is filled with revulsion at the notion of ordinary people living pleasant and secure lives.       

 

Comments

[low-tech cyclist]

When Murray mentions "this self-absorption in whiling away life as pleasantly as possible," what came to my mind were the aristocratic classes of every era, those who had inherited sufficient wealth that they would never have to work for a living, and whose members largely passed their days in a perpetual round of social occasions.

Sounds like a good argument for a confiscatory estate tax.

[kathy a.]

exactly, LTC.

his lament about modern artistic efforts not withstanding the test of time is peculiar. he suggests that there is a lack of artistic innovation (which is patently untrue), but then expects modern work to stand up to the historic artistic canon that he selects as the best. in the first place, imitation is not artistic innovation. secondly, his choices are no doubt influenced by the selections of aristocratic "experts" who have gone before, proclaiming the greatness of certain pieces -- drawn from narrow categories of acceptable art. finally, who gave him a crystal ball?

there has in fact been incredible artistic innovation in the last century and especially in recent decades, sometimes paralleling and overlapping technological innovation and often reflecting broader social changes. what's more, artistic expression is far more accessible to all kinds of people, not just the right people. the sheer abundance is amazing. perhaps that makes it harder to select favorites, when the gallery holds millions of pieces, not a few dozen.

no idea where he finds support for the notion that there are falling levels of satisfaction with work. it certainly is unsatisfying when one cannot find work, or when one's job is offshored, or when one's income is cut in favor of protecting the wealthy. but it cannot be true that people were happier working in slavery, or in sweatshops with no worker protections, or doing crushing manual labor at the expense of their own bodies.

[oddjob]

It also writes off all modern architecture. While there is no shortage of modern architecture I find profoundly ugly (a classic in the genre of ugly brutalistic modern architecture is Boston's City Hall and surrounding plaza, something only architects ever like) there are also buildings that while challenging to traditional aesthetic sensiblities are also beautiful:

Philip Johnson's glass house

Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum

Jørn Utzon's Sydney Opera House

Henning Larsen's Copenhagen Opera House

[oddjob]

those who had inherited sufficient wealth that they would never have to work for a living, and whose members largely passed their days in a perpetual round of social occasions

The people Beethoven found beneath contempt.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

I am a fan of good modern architecture too.

Like you, though, I find Government Center to just be a horror. It looks like several buildings here in DC, including the hateful FBI Building.

[oddjob]

A building and plaza occupying a relatively large public space in a small city is a building and plaza that people need to want to be in. That's just common sense when a city simply isn't large enough to have big spaces people avoid being in.

Almost no one spends any more time in the vicinity of Boston's City Hall than absolutely necessary.

That's all the evidence of spectacular design failure one needs, no matter what the architects think.

[oddjob]

It also writes off iconic American theater:

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
A Streetcar Named Desire
Long Day's Journey Into Night
Death of a Salesman
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum
West Side Story
Fiddler on the Roof
How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
Auntie Mame
Camelot
My Fair Lady

[Sir Charles]

It's a horrible public space.

I was in Boston last summer and did an extensive walk around with my son -- for the most part, the city looked great. The Big Dig really did wonders for it -- the elimination of the elevated highway and the elevated trains really opened the city up in a spectacular way.

But Government Center seemed even worse than I had remembered.

[Crissa]

'atomistic' life? WTF is that supposed to mean? And 'anomie' seems to be a made-up word not unlike 'Drapetomania'.

[Crissa]

These aren't great photos, but brutilism can work; http://californiaticketking.com/media/k2/items/cache/6dff3acdd449a676068f08d6eab711d2_XL.jpg This is our county building with port-hole like windows across the entire surface and the court house to the right; http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/county/personnel/CountyBldg.jpg is a closer shot.

Personally, I'd have taken a shot in the morning or shown it from the park side.

[jeanne marie]

Murray evidently is a victim of the advanced welfare state. He should get a real job.

[kathy a.]

oddjob, good modern architecture and american theater are just two slices of the richness that sir know-it-all does not see worthy of consideration.

omg, boston city hall is one definitely ugly building. my own little town had its digs in trailers for a long time, and i think they looked better.

also, what jeanne marie said. ;)

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

There are whole aesthetic universes that Murray doesn't want to explore. Because really how can you improve upon Faust?

crissa,

Strangely enough, Murray seems to believe that a society constructed on the ethic of solidarity is somehow alienating, whereas a world of rapacious capitalism in which we desperately need charity is somehow one which fosters community. Why? Well because Charles Murray says so.

That building is not bad looking,

jm,

Ha! Murray is one of the ultimate winners of the wingnut welfare sweepstakes.

kathy,

Not only is the city hall ugly, but it is set in a completely inorganic way -- it's incredibly alienating. The state capital building in Boston is quite nice -- very old school with its gold leafed domed roof.

One of my favorite public spaces in Boston is
Copley Square, which juxtaposes all manner of architectural styles and makes them work together.

[big bad wolf]

omer, virgil and dante do have those guys beat, i think. i like the formulation better in your last comment---there are other aesthetic universes to explore. they might be lesser, in some cases, maybe just a bit, but they are full and realized in themselves

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

I really don't. I think, at least from the perspective of a 21st Century man, that at least some of these modern writers have more to say to us than the old masters.

I always think of athletic arguments back in the day, when people would try to argue for the superiority of the heroes of prior generations. Any sport where one could objectively measure performance -- i.e. timed speed sports -- proved this to be illusory. But in subjective sports, one could continue to argue for the old timers -- in a similar fashion to what Murray is doing.

[beckya57]

I find it interesting that Murray condemns the supposedly easy life of the welfare state, but doesn't volunteer to give up his own benefits. This sounds to me like just another version of that favorite right-wing staple: it's ok for us elite types to have everything we need and want, but it'll be the end of civilization if the rubes get their basic needs met.

On a different subject: Sir C, have you read Jeffrey Toobin's New Yorker piece on Citizens United? I haven't, but I just saw a blog post on it by Ed Kilgore at Political Animal. Kilgore said that Toobin paints a pretty chilling picture of the 5 right-wing justices, Roberts in particular, and their eagerness to take us back to before the New Deal. He also said that Toobin's piece makes it very easy to imagine the 5 voting to overturn all of the ACA, not just the mandate. I'd be interested to hear your opinion as a lawyer.

[Sir Charles]

becky,

I read the same post and thought it sounded quite intriguing. And very troubling. I want to read that Souter dissent now big time.

I think Roberts is a pretty committed right winger, so I guess it wouldn't shock me completely if he went this route, although my initial reaction was that he wouldn't.

I believe that if ACA gets overturned, it will be the entire law, in part because the Obama Administration took the position that it should be that way. They essentially argued that the mandate is indispensable to the law and that if it goes the whole statute should go. I don't pretend to understand the thinking behind this.

[nancy]

Lord. Why does anyone who doesn't understand and live the arts ever wander into such an essay?

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

Possibly for my amusement?

[kathy a.]

heh. well, then, he did a good job. ;)

[jeanne marie]

I am not amused.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Murray is always 'delightful' -- if you find the queasiness after a roller coaster ride a delight, as some people seem to. But for an even better picture of 'the reactionary mind' why not look in on the latest efusion from the swamp of John Derbyshire. (I was originally going to quote from the Driftglass post, but the original piece is much more worth reading. Deriftglass merely gets the scum that rises to the top, the original gives to the full flavor.

Two quotes:

[Driftglass gets this one]I don't mind the word "white" in either of those expressions. Conservatism, Inc. or otherwise, is a white people's movement, a scattering of outliers notwithstanding.

Always has been, always will be. I have attended at least a hundred conservative gatherings, conferences, cruises, and jamborees: let me tell you, there ain't too many raisins in that bun. I was in and out of the National Review offices for twelve years, and the only black person I saw there, other than when Herman Cain came calling, was Alex, the guy who runs the mail room. (Hey, Alex!)

This isn't because conservatism is hostile to blacks and mestizos. Very much the contrary, especially in the case of Conservatism Inc. They fawn over the occasional nonwhite with a puppyish deference that fairly fogs the air with embarrassment. (Q: What do you call the one black guy at a gathering of 1,000 Republicans? A: "Mr. Chairman.")

I'd quote his reasons why, but I think this is even more to the point -- discussing the proper term for the 'non-Conservtism, Inc.' right:

Leaving aside the intended malice, I actually think "White Supremacist" is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don't see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.

And now he's free, FREEEE!!!! to use chosen authorities that the NRO would frown upon. Including several quotes from American Renaissance and Jared Taylor.

And as Driftglass points out, his picture of Conservatism is precisely what we liberals have been saying ever since the Goldwater Crossover.

[oddjob]

Massachusetts state capitol building (which houses all three branches of the state government)

Boston's Copley Square in winter

[oddjob]

(Q: What do you call the one black guy at a gathering of 1,000 Republicans? A: "Mr. Chairman.")

Holy s**t.............

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Another great column -- h/t Mike's Blog Round-up at C&L -- is from our old friend Roy Edroso in the Voice, covering RightBloggers' responses to Obama's SSM declaration.

Thee are too many pieces to click through on to get them all, but it's worth clicking through on the Aaron Goldstein piece -- which replaces the conservative roller coaster with a newer model in the shape of a Moebius strip. Roy gets the whole 'money quote' -- as do I -- but there is a special benefit to see it in the original:

But let's say Obama loses in November. He has a ready made excuse for his defeat. Obama can say that the forces of darkness (i.e. opponents of gay marriage) are to blame for his defeat while patting himself on the back for his "courage" in supporting same sex marriage. It also helps to position him for a comeback in 2016 or 2020. Make no mistake. If Obama loses this fall it won't be the last we see of him. By that time with a greater presence of voters born after 1980 chances are there will be more voters in favor of gay marriage which would give Obama an opportunity to claim he was ahead of the curve.

(And, sowwy,Sir Charles and oddjob, seems like Goldstein is also a Red Sox fan, and includes sports notes in his pieces.)

[oddjob]

I really don't. I think, at least from the perspective of a 21st Century man, that at least some of these modern writers have more to say to us than the old masters.

While the masters said things in ways that make them timeless, sometimes the more recent perspective is easier to quickly grasp. The tragedy of Oedipus is poignant, but in at least one way I find it utterly perplexing (because I can't understand why the man was an outcast when he didn't know he had married his mother - in my opinion that's an idictment of the society, not the man). I have no such problem with Death of a Salesman, or Ah, Wilderness!, or Twelve Angry Men, or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oh my, I hadn't read down the alicublog pieces. Turns out that a lot of people are seriously arguing the 'Cleveland ploy' idea, including Mickey Kaus. Lose now, come back next time. Edroso is always great, but the pieces he's doing on this are in the top ten percent -- at least -- of his own work.

[oddjob]

Not only is the city hall ugly, but it is set in a completely inorganic way -- it's incredibly alienating.

Perfectly stated. To build it they mowed down a whole neighborhood of three story tenement buildings (known collectively as Scully Square) and erected a bunch of large government buildings, with the city hall as the worst of the lot.

[oddjob]

When was the last time Mickey Kaus got something right?

[Sir Charles]

jm,

You have to laugh at Murray -- otherwise, if you were to take him seriously you might have this sinking feeling that we as a society are in deep trouble when this kind of claptrap is viewed as the work of an "intellectual." Oh, right -- he is and we are.

oddjob,

Great pictures. I love the architectural juxtaposition in Copley Square from the modernism of the Hancock Building to the Romanesque Revival style of Trinity Church to the Italian Renaissance style of the Public Library. It's an amazing confluence of first class examples of a host of architectural styles -- the living antithesis of Government Center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copley_Square

Jim,

I read the Derbyshire piece mouth agape. Free at least indeed. The whole VDare site is quite the fever swamp.

I cannot believe anyone is positing the Cleveland ploy as a serious idea -- even someone who has lost his mind as badly as Mickey Kaus. There is so little tolerance for defeat in American politics, that the notion that one is going to endure defeat to come back again is just preposterous. The last person to bounce back from a presidential defeat and capture a nomination was Nixon -- and it was an eight year hiatus, marked by one of the worst defeats in American political history at its midpoint that allowed his comeback.

The Dems gave Stevenson two shots in 1956 -- I suspect in part because everyone knew that Eisenhower was going to get re-elected. With the advent of the modern primary system in 1972, no loser has ever been able to regain a nomination. Indeed, most have been thrown on the scrap heap of history on the first Wednesday in November and forgotten as quickly as possible.

Roy is a master -- and a truly fine human being. He and I have had the pleasure of going out several times since he moved down here and he is a real mensch.

[jimintampa]

Around 30 years ago I spent many a coke fueled night wondering about the purpose of a world without a god, and finally decided it was to gain and propagate science and knowledge of the world. Charles Murray is the antithesis of this - he wants to destroy knowledge and limit people's ability to share in that goal. When Charles Murray writes, he subtracts from the sum of human knowledge.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I seem to be even chattier than usual this morning. I really am not the person to say much about the artistic comparisons, but I have to make a couple of points about why they are always 'unfair' if they compare 'present day' with 'the classics.'

First, we forget that when we look at, e.g., today's plays we see the whole range of them, the crap and the brilliant, the penetrating and the hackwork. But when we look at the classics, at Sophocles, and the like, we are just seeing 'the survivors.' Even for Sophocles, we see only seven of a reported 123 plays. Were the rest of the same quality as what we have? No way of knowing.

But Sophocles' reputation came from the fact that he, reportedly, won 24 of the 30 Dramatic competitions he completed in. Who were the losers, and were they Sophocles' near equals or, if we had their work, would we include them with Sophocles, or with the Michael Avallones, the Andrew Lloyd Webers, or the other hacks of today?

Second point: It's much easier to 'pay reverence to' a marble bust than to someone who you might run into in a restaurant, or see hailing a cab. Marble busts don't fart, have bar bills, or get sued for alimony. They don't make funny (or unfunny) jokes, swap baseball stories, buy you a drink, or borrow money for the rent -- and somehow it's hard to 'revere' someone you've seen in a pair of khaki shorts and a stained t-shirt. (And if you haven't experienced these things first-hand, you know you'll find out all about them in the next profile of the writer you read.)

It's also easy to confuse 'result' with 'intention' and think a particular classic figure was trying to produce great art, rather than trying to pay that bar bill. Or to avert ones eyes from the slips a classical author makes -- Sancho Panza's disappearing horse -- or even to assume what was just human sloppiness was instead 'demigod like brilliance.' (To pick a modern writer who will be considered among the classics if we all survive, I wonder how many people will try and 'explain' some of the inconsistencies in Philip K. Dock's works -- the ideas he threw in and never developed for example -- and assume this was a deliberate artistic decision, and not simply that he was too rushed to get the story in and the check cashed to remember the idea, or that he was getting harassed by the ex-wives, dealers, and psychiatrists that his writing supported.)

Third point: It's hard to judge new art forms without time and perspective. Some forms seem to have the potential for producing 'high art' while others do not, but it takes a while to tell which was which. If someone had asked which of the following could produce art -- mystery stories, science fiction, westerns, romantic suspense stories, rock and roll, country and western music, plays, movies, and tv -- everyone would have said yes to plays, most people would probably have agreed on detective stories and movies, and would have laughed uproariously at the thought of the others ever producing anything an intelligent adult could consider art. (And while there would have been some arguments on behalf of SF, even people who enjoyed or even produced the others would have been as dubious.)

Today few people would deny the artistic possibilities of rock, of science fiction, of movies. Yet some of the others, country & western music, romantic suspense and westerns, still seem to be permanent homes for the enjoyable second-rate.

(I didn't mention tv because it is like SF was. The possibilities are there, but it takes a while to understand the exact form they are in, or how that affects the results. If you don't understand the form, sf can seem incomprehensible, juvenile, or hackish -- and there are certainly good examples of each to defend the scorn. But once you see how the field wors, understand the conventions and cliches, you can understand that a Dick, a Heinlein, a Sturgeon, a Bester, all may well deserve the term 'artist.' TV is even harder, because nobody seems to realize the constraints of the form. But this one, in particular I want to get back to, and I have one last point here.)

The other points were valid almost any time in the last century, but the net has added a new problem. There's no longer the barrier between artist and audience there once was. Anyone can sing, play, write, draw, paint, or animate anything and put it out there. It changes things, and it goves us a different look -- but gonn cut this short, my houseworking day is just beginning and I want to get back to one thing that ties in art and politics -- through the medium of tv. But that's for later, not sure how much.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Two corrections to that screed. "Philip K. Dock" should be Dick, of course, and the sentence "If someone had asked..." was meant to read "In 1960, if someone had asked..." which was the whole point.

[Joe S]

Derbyshire is a racist, but he's right about the conservative movement. It is a movement centered around protecting and expanding White privilege.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Actually, Sir Charles, the "Cleveland Ploy' is even harder to believe. It isn't just that Obama would have been defeted in this scenario, but that he would have been a defeated incumbent. There have only been ten previous incumbents who lost a general election (and five more, all succeeding VPs, who tried and failed to get renominated, including Truman in 1952).

Of these, only Cleveland and Fillmore were ever to attempt a comeback, the others never competed for the Presidency again, and only Cleveland succeeded. And remember that, when Cleveland lost in 1888, he actually won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College vote.

A slightly more credible absurdity is the suggestion that Obama wants to follow the path of Quincy Adams and Taft and return to politics or government in a different capacity -- it's even vaguely possible that Obama really would prefer to return to te Legislative Branch, but after reelection, not instead of it.

My favorite variant of the theory -- again h/t Roy -- is the one that pushes the most keys on the Conservative fear-keyboard. This has Obama 'losing deliberately' so he can become Secretary General of the UN. Now that's a false rumor worth spreading -- only in person so you can watch the fuses blow in the mind of the hearer.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

Good points on the issue of great art. And yes, I think there is the possibility of serious art in things like popular music and television that people like Murray no doubt believe unthinkable.

I think the notion that Obama would pull a JQA and return to the legislature is beyond laughable. One gets the sense that Obama never particularly enjoyed that sort of thing, but saw it as a means to an end.

The elections between 1876 and 1892 were incredibly close, with the country almost perfectly divided in the post-Civil War, post-Reconstruction era. Cleveland as the first Democrat to win the presidency during that era and as the winner of the 1888 popular vote had a kind of status that was pretty exceptional.

Joe,

I agree -- Derbyshire is a racist, but he understands the conservative movement and how it has worked very well. It was just amusing to see him operate in an atmosphere with no constraints. He didn't disappoint.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

This didn't start as an open thread, but there isn't one currently going, and the recent Senatorial developments should be noted. I always thought Kerrey would have a good shot against Bruning, the expected Republican nominee who had a number of ethiocal weaknesses and scandals out there. (And I expect there will be a very large GOTV effort to get Obama that one EV in the second district, which would have helped Kerrey.)

But Bruning lost the primary, his support collapsed 'within days' after a Conservative PAC attacked his character and ethical behaviour in office. The winner was an outsider -- Bruning's expected TP-supported main challenger finished third -- named Deb Fischer. (Her main endorsements were from Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.)

The race is now much crazier. (One writer -- can't find it now -- said 'Unlike most TP candidates, Fischer is unlikely to embarrass the Republican Party -- at least no more so than the other front runners.')

Also, Wisconsin seems to be getting easier to hold as well. While there will still be a primary, Tommy Thompson, certainly the best known Republican running, failed to last past the second elimination at the state convention, pulling down only 18%. And, looking at the two front-runners, neither seems particularly formidable, an ex-Congressman (and homophobe) and the Speaker of the State House -- whose Wikipedia entry shows no notable accoplishments at all.

If we can hold on to NE, that means our only sure loss is ND, right? Except...

But that's for another comment, hopefully before nap time.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I have no sense of how the Nebraska race will look with the surprise nominee. Kerrey's polling to date has been quite discouraging.

In a way, Thompson and Kerrey strike me as parallel figures. Once unbeatable in their home states, both have become outsiders. I was rather surprised though at how far Thompson has fallen with fellow Republicans. That was an embarrassing showing. I am curious whether than means he cannot get the nomination. I would have thought that a Thompson-Baldwin matchup was uphill for the Dems -- but I think Baldwin can beat those other clowns.

And, yes, I understand we have a pretty good candidate running in ND.

[Joe S]

Although the Walker- Barrett polls are really discouraging in Wisconsin. It seems that without an enthusiastic minority vote, Wisconsin is one of those states where committed conservatives slightly outnumber committed Democrats. With the Senate races coming up just short, the State Supreme Court race coming up just short, and now the Walker race coming up just short, it's really discouraging.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

North Dakota politics are a little weirder than you'd think. It's a "Deep Red" state that keeps electing Democrats -- and not always Blue Dogs -- to Congress. We forget that when Hoeven replaced Dorgan, he was the first Republican in that seat since 1987, when Mark Andrews lost. And the last time a Republican held Conrad's seat was 1961.

And when Rick Berg defeated one of the larger and smellier Cerulean Canines, Earl Pomeroy, he was the first Republican Representative since 1981.

Still, you'd have to give a generic Republican a big edge against a generic Democrat, and a popular Republican like Hoeven was a shoo-in. (I never approve of letting Republican win uncontested, but there was more of an excuse there than anywhere else.)

But Rick Berg, trying to move up, is no Hoeven. (He made the news recently as the Congressman who couldn't remember how much the minimum wage was -- not surprising for the 14th Richest Member.) He's a TPer, a gun supporter, a member of the Prayer Caucus -- but none of these are really liabilities in ND. (Though there might be some opposition to the "Concealed Carry Reciprocity" law he sponsored. Even some gun owners might be leery of forcing the state to accept anyone who got a CC Permit in any other state.) But if there is a candidate that is vulnerable to attacks based on the "War Against Women" it's Rick Berg.

It's not just the expected votes. He's fundraised using pieces from the CWA, and, most damning if we only go ahead and use it:

That's not all, of course. Berg has a history of opposing measures that would protect and help victims of domestic violence. North Dakota is one of just nine states that allow domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. But Berg rejected a bill that would have stopped insurance companies from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. "Rick Berg was chairman of the committee that heard the bill then. He says its supporters didn't have any examples of battered women being denied coverage.”

The Democrat is an attractive and progressive ex-Attorney General named Heidi Heitkamp. There's more against Berg -- his company is a BIG target -- but this is beginning to 'smell' like Tester/Burns. At this time of 2006, nobody thought we had a chance at that one, but, and I insist thanks to the blogosphere, we kept hammering away and finding weaknesses and publicizing them, and getting Tester support from around the country. (Of course, we also had Howard Dean. DWS seems less awful than Tim Kaine, but has a loooooong way to go.)

So maybe even ND isn't quite a sure thing.

[I just saw Sir C's comment. Glad to know there is getting to be some buzz about Heitkamp.]

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I had really thought the Wisconsin recall should have been timed so that it occurred at the same time as the general election, when the minority communities in Milwaukee and elsewhere would be likely to turn out in greater numbers. I am told that this is exactly where the Supreme Court race was lost.

This seems like a real 50-50 type election. We have to hope that enough people have been alienated by Walker that we'll get over the top.

Jim,

I had friends who worked for Quentin Burdick, who represented ND in the Senate forever. My sense is that Heitkamp has a fighting chance, but that the odds favor Berg. It strikes me as similar to the Indiana race in terms of odds, maybe slightly better.

[oddjob]

looking at the two front-runners, neither seems particularly formidable, an ex-Congressman (and homophobe) and the Speaker of the State House -- whose Wikipedia entry shows no notable accoplishments at all.

The Speaker is the Senate Majority Leader's younger brother and their dad used to be in Wisconsin government, too.

They're all wingnuts and deep in cahoots with Walker.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir Charles: The attitude you express is subtle, but different from what I first saw when I began reading and commenting in the blogosphere -- and it is, my apologies, the attitude that helped lead to the Disaster of 2010.

It is an attitude of an 'academic observer' reporting on the numbers, discussing them, predicting how they might change, trying to understand why they were what they were. All of which is valuable -- and fun -- but in 2006 and 2008 I saw something else -- and remember that we didn't lose one Senate seat we already held in either election.

Back then the question was "How can we change the numbers' and we, no, 'they,' I can't take any credit for doing anything but passing an occasional minor comment, found ways. Tester didn't have a chance, Webb was strong but against the apparently unbeatable George Allen, and the rest, but we won them. We built a buzz around the candidates -- in 2010 we never even mentioned the candidates running against the freak-show exhibits we laughed at -- we looked into the Republican record and began pooling our information. And we made enough noise that even the mainstream media couldn't avoid covering the stories. (Without the blogosphere, 'macaca' would have been a nine days' wonder at best, but the blogs kept it alive.)

We got a glimpse of what we could do earlier in the year, with the Komen story -- even though we let up too soon. It started out being about Planned Parenthood, but it was the commenters on the blogs that had the other pieces, the lawsuits, the political history of the participants. They made the story about Komen and hurt them badly, though not as much as they deserved.

This is what i am trying to get us to do yet again. There are a lot of people out there who have facts about Goldmark Property management -- Rick Berg's firm -- but if we don't yell loudly about it the voters in ND won't get those facts. (Imagine if we'd made a point of Rick Scott's dubious history, or vetted Scott Walker, or had mentioned te opposition to people like Paul, LePage, Johnson, Rubio, Toomey. But we acted as if, since we knew the facts, all the voters knew and disregarded them. We could have, simply by commenting, made them into stories that would get covered.)

The point again is that we have the Presidency -- and for those who won't believe me on that, just accept that it's up to the Obama Campaign to handle that excresence and that they certainly have demonstrated the ability against a much stronger candidate.

But the DNC slept through 2010 too, and I've seen little evidence they are awake this year, and a lot of evidence they are screwing things up again -- the Walker recall hand-washing, the refusal to move the Convention, the refusal to actually attack candidates instead of just the ideas they promote. (Damn it, call homophobes homophobes, and force them to defend their bigotry, and this time I mean candidates and not just bloggers.)

But we don't have to join them. Let's start writing letters about showing some love to the Berkeleys, the Carmonas, the Heitkamps. Talk to Roy, Sir C, about zeroing in on some of the vulnerable Republicans. And hey, send the occasional $5 spot to these candidates, if your own state is safe. (Hell, there are probably little fund-raising bits we can do for the group of them. Bake sales anyone. Sounds silly and trivial, but it helps -- and the fact that a candidate is getting better known so that outsiders will pitch in is a boost all its own.)

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I will try to focus in on the races as we get a little further down the road and put up some Act Blue fundraising links. I think we've got a bunch of races that are absolutely crucial this go round and that holding both the presidency and the senate are imperative.

I can't really see Roy doing the exhorting of the troops for the Democrats thing -- it's not really his style. He's a brave explorer of the fever swamps and witty slayer of the absurdities found therein, but I don't think that electoral machinations are his thing.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I of course agree about the necessity. I'd put the discussions up sooner rather than later because we aren't just trying to rause money but to create 'buzz' enough that there will be more coverage of these races than the '10 races got.

As for Roy, agreed he's no cheerleader, but there are some prime targets for his swamp hunting. Imagine what he would do with someone like Berg, because of his actual support for 'violence as a pre-existing condition' and also for some of the questionable -- to say the least -- tactics of Goldmark Property Management, which was started by Berg. (In fact, right now the ND people are concentrating on Goldmark's record -- including getting sued -- in ND, but if this gets talked about, there are probably stories people from other states can add. This is what i mean by information building.) Throw in the ties to the CWA and Roy would, I'd think, love it. (It'd help if he at least mentioned the Democratic candidate's name, btw.)

There are and will be others. I'll be glad to toss out leads, of course -- hell, unless I relurk, it'll be hard to stop me. And I haven't begun to look at House races yet. (He lost, so it didn't matter, but I wish there'd been some good piece on the Massachusetts ex-cop who was running -- using his police experience as a key point --despite being kicked off the force for covering for a partner who loved to strip search teenage girls for the crime of 'Driving While Nubile.' The folks at Blue Mass Group wrote about it, but imagine if it had gotten any play at all nationally, and how the Boston papers would have been forced to cover it.

[Mandos]

Have I pointed y'all to this now-classic essay on David Frum? I must have. It's a must-read.

Bearded Guy: I like my beard.

Frum: You should shave it.

BG: Why?

Frum: Because it should have been the case that you were too afraid to grow it.

BG: But I wasn’t.

Frum: But you should have been.

BG: Why?

Frum: Because you are wrecking the culture.

BG: Why?

Frum: Because the culture will decay and then the economy will fall apart and we’ll all be poor.

BG: Because of my beard?

Frum: Just think about it. Our economy depends on a healthy culture.

BG: But you don’t even care about the economy. You said you don’t.

Frum: I wish you hadn’t mentioned that.

BG: But I did.

Frum: Look, if you shave the beard, everything will be … better.

BG: You’re a moonbat.

Frum: It’s all related to … foreign policy and wheelchair access in public school, in ways that … would take a long time to explain.

BG: Get away from me!

Frum: Look. Just shave your beard!

(This is from back before the right-wing wingnut blogs had settled on "moonbat" as equivalent to "wingnut".)

[Joe S]

Prup, I don't think that the DNC slept through 2010. I think the Democratic Party was caught like a dear in the headlights by several social phenomena. First, the alliance with finance and neoliberalism that Democrats need right now bit the Dems in the ass. Second, the Democrats didn't realize that older Whites see government benefits as a zero sum game, and that they want to preserve their middle class status through benefits just for Whites-- and that any effort to steer some of the power of government was going to cause a giant shitstorm. I saw the same thing in Illinois in the 1980's and 1990's on a state and local level (Harold Washington in Chicago). It ripped the Democratic coalition up from the inside and the result was Republican dominance at the state level for nearly three decades (I didn't see it in the 1970's, but it was the same dynamic).