Over the last few months, there has been much finger-pointing as to which particular sect of the old GOP coalition is to blame for the policy failures of the last 8 years and the electoral failures of the last 2 years…..I think these accusations are deeply misplaced – the problems have not been caused by religious conservatives or adherence to free market beliefs, but instead by a sort of “talk radio” dogmatism in which any given issue becomes a litmus test for whether one is a “true” conservative or Republican.

This dogmatism has become terribly pervasive, dominating the party infrastructure and including many of the most prominent faces of conservatism both online and on the air. It is a dogmatism that is in some ways pushed by a wide variety of conservatives – free market conservatives and libertarians, religious conservatives, and defense conservatives. And yet it is also a dogmatism with which large elements of each of those groups take significant umbrage.

In and of itself, though, a little dogmatism is not necessarily a unique hindrance to a political party or movement’s electability or even its legislative agenda – political dogma has existed for at least as long as political parties have existed, and without some of it political parties cannot distinguish themselves from their competitors.

Instead, the problem with this particular form of dogma is its all-around meanness. Under this dogmatism, dissenters of any stripe are treated as the enemy, regardless of whether the dissenter’s general viewpoint could be described as “conservative,” and regardless of the dissenter’s political affiliation. Wide nets are cast to stereotype anyone who may be adversely affected by implementation of one of the dogma’s tenets. Where a particular tenet relies on a particular fact, and a suggestion is made that the fact is inaccurate, the personal loyalties of the questioner are called into question – even if the fact is demonstrably wrong.

What’s important here isn’t that GOP dogmatism (or political dogmatism more generally) is overly ideological – quite the opposite, actually. Instead, the problem is that it doesn’t recognize its lack of a firm ideological basis, turning the individual policy preferences of whichever strain of conservatism is most passionate about a given issue into a litmus test for some imagined “master conservatism.” Because this dogmatism represents the conclusions of numerous different philosophies, though, it cannot rely on the ideological arguments that gave rise to the policy preference in the first place. For instance, relying on principled libertarian arguments for a particular economic policy is not possible when you take a position on social policy that is inherently at odds with those arguments; similarly it is not possible to rely on principled religious conservative arguments for social policy when you take a position on economic policy that is directly at odds with those arguments. In short, the problem with dogmatism isn’t that it elevates principle over the common good – it’s that it is almost completely devoid of principle in the first place, a fact which Conor Friedersdorf seems to get. The result is that this imagined “master conservatism” is forced to rely on arguments that rely on a sense of fear and an “us against them” mentality.

This is not to say that this type of dogmatism is without value – it’s useful as a means of creating party unity and “getting out the base.” Nor is it particularly the province of conservatives – liberals and Democrats most certainly have their own type of fear-based, “us against them” dogmatism. Instead, the problem here is that the dogmatism has become far too pervasive, both in terms of those who insist on this dogmatism and – as importantly – in terms of the number of issues to which it extends (even extending to issues that have no inherent connection to policy preferences, such as whether Iraq had WMD’s, whether global warming is real or imagined, or whether AirTran was morally correct in its refusal to permit a Muslim family to reboard a flight after they were cleared by the FBI).

For instance, it’s one thing for talk-show hosts to rant and rave about “Defeatocrats,” the “homosexual mafia,” etc., since their purpose is not to persuade but is instead almost exclusively to rally the people who are already predisposed to agree with them. It’s a far different thing, however, when that attitude extends to campaign tactics, and/or a huge percentage of “talking heads,” whose purpose is at least nominally to persuade people to either vote Republican or to support a particular policy position.

Similarly, it’s one thing to rant and rave against a particular group as a means of motivating your “base” and maybe to scare the bejesus out of some fence-sitters into supporting your position. It is a far different thing, though, to do this on virtually every issue. So while Muslims, for instance, may be a tiny minority group whose support on any given issue is not worth being concerned about losing, the combination of Muslims, gays, social safety net beneficiaries, Latino immigrants, war opponents, etc. is a pretty large group.

By relying on rhetorical arguments that demonize so many groups and by making those arguments through so many different mediums, this form of dogma dramatically reduces the “pie” to whom conservatives may appeal – both for voting purposes and for purposes of winning support on policies that have nothing to do with the issue on which that group has been demonized. As Rod Dreher points out: “…if you build your political movement around constantly pointing out that it’s Us vs. Them, pretty soon you’ll find that there aren’t too many of Us left.”

But again – this problem is not one that is uniquely the province of conservatism or the Republican Party. Instead, it is a problem that will inevitably arise as any particular political coalition becomes ever-larger and attains a certain level of political success on issues where there is near-uniform intra-coalition agreement; in order to maintain the successful coalition, the party needs to manufacture loyalty on issues where there is less intra-coalition agreement. This is, however, an unsustainable strategy due to the way in which it “shrinks the pie” by demonizing policy opponents, even if they happen to be in the same political party. Eventually, the pie becomes small enough that the party can again find a coherent set of positive principles around which to build, and the cycle will begin anew.

The extremes of this cycle are just exacerbated today due to the way in which modern technology allows politics to pervade so much of everyday life. Eventually, the Dems will face similar problems as a result of their own successes, even as the GOP rebuilds around some as-yet unknown set of principles with a relatively broad appeal.

(Cross-posted at Publius Endures).

Right now, we’re in that strange political space between the moment we know who our new president is and the point in which we discover what kind of president he will be. This is the point when our hopes and fears are most acute, before they’ve been tempered by reality. To that end, there is a new website dedicated to chronicling the hopes and fears surrounding Barack Obama.

As a guy who has plenty of both emotions concerning our president-elect, I found the site interesting. Users can submit hopes and fears and vote on which they share. So while there is currently only one person hoping he won’t support Israel as much as many Americans would like, there are seven hoping he’s a socialist (there are 45 fearing the same thing).

It’s all a simple, unscientific look. But it amused me and I thought it’d be a good lead-in for you guys to share your own hopes and fears. I’ll go first.

My hope is that he will show respect to both sides of the political aisle and govern with the best ideas regardless of where they originate in the political spectrum.

My fear is that he will sign off on a universal healthcare plan that overextends the system, decreasing care for everyone except the wealthy who will be able to afford the good doctors and good private hospitals which will go to a private pay system to escape the government mess. (Yeah, I have very specific fears, what can I say?)

Your turn.

My friend and colleague, Lagan Sebert, and I have just published a follow-up on the voting situation in Pennsylvania, arrowing in on a recent legal battle over paper ballots and the Philadelphia City Commission (which has kind of become a peculiar little beat for the ANP, I guess.)

This week, we attended the federal hearing against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (filed by the NAACP) and the last public meeting of the Philly City Commissioners before the election. We were surprised to see very few members of media at either meeting–Bob Warner of the Philadelphia Daily News was an exception.

If you like it, please do send this along to other people who might be interested or link to it or embed it on your websites! All ANP content is free for use in newspapers, blogs, television, and radio.

Chaos Looms Over Pennsylvania Vote
By Danielle Ivory on Oct 31, 2008

Philadelphia is shaping up to be a key city in a key battleground state in this election, but machine problems and long lines may plague the polling stations and voter disenfranchisement will be a serious risk. Unfortunately for voters, the people charged with running a smooth election in Philly seem surprisingly unconcerned. Philly’s veritable election czar, Marge Tartaglione (D), in particular, shocked ANP with her comments at a recent hearing. See more videos at the American News Project.

ANP has been investigating the perplexing case of the Philadelphia City Commission for a few weeks.

Click for our original story, Philly Official Scoffs at Voting Problems.

Click for our follow-up, Voters Sue Pennsylvania, Election Official Scoffs.

And click for the judge’s recent ruling in the case of the NAACP v. Cortes.

Follow Danielle’s reporting on twitter.

Follow Lagan’s reporting on twitter.

Just by way of introduction, the ANP is an independent non-profit video news organization in DC. We produce pieces for the web, but offer all of our content for free to newspapers, blogs, websites, radio, and television so please feel free to embed or share our videos. We see all visitors to our website as potential partners and hope that our community will eventually help fund specific beats, send us news tips and story ideas, and join us as freelancers. Another great site to check out is http://spot.us.

We’re convinced that journalistic collaboration will be essential to the future of news, and so far it’s worked pretty well for us. We’ve worked with McClatchy, The Nation, the Washington Independent, and The Huffington Post on investigative and breaking stories and look forward to more teamwork in the future.

Recently, I’ve been covering voting infrastructural issues for the ANP and found myself in Philadelphia. During the 2008 primary, parts of Pennsylvania (particularly areas with high concentrations of poverty and people of color) experienced major delays due to machine failures, and many voters ended up waiting in line for hours or getting disenfranchised. When I spoke to Philly’s Deputy Commissioner, Fred Voigt, I was startled by a strong sense of institutional inertia, an unwillingness to admit that serious problems exist and, what’s more, that these problems could possibly be fixed with better management and funding. Furthermore, he and the commission (headed by Marge Tartaglione) seemed alarmingly unconcerned about long lines leading to disenfranchisement. We aired a story about this on Monday, featuring this disturbing interview. Since then, the NAACP and the Election Reform Network have filed a lawsuit against the state or Pennsylvania, requesting that paper ballots be made available for the voters of PA in case there are machine breakdowns. ANP’s original story was quoted in the complaint—Voigt’s comments were described as an example of a “woefully inadequate” official response to election problems.

We aired a follow-up yesterday, covering the lawsuit and presenting more of our strange interview with Fred Voigt. I asked Voigt how voters could avoid lines, and gave me another surprising answer.

We’ll continue following this case and the state of voting in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. (If you have ideas or tips, please feel free to email us at contact@newsproject.org.)

ANP: Voters Sue Pennsylvania, Election Official Scoffs

Click here to view our original story.

Click here to view the Voter Action complaint and plaintiffs’ memorandum.

I couldn’t care less who my local paper endorses (The San Antonio Express-News went predictably for John McCain, in case you were dying to know). And, really, I couldn’t care less who any paper endorses.

It all seems so self important.

Thoughts?

What’s on your mind?

What will happen?

Who will win?

And why?

Talk!

What this means is that, at any given gathering, I’m one of the only people in the room who has not decided that John McCain’s election would mean the end of civilization as we know it and that Barack Obama’s election would turn back the tides and heal the earth. I exaggerate. Most of the Obama supporters I know are very realistic about the man’s potential and capabilities. And that’s the problem. It’s hard not to fall in line with your very reasonable friends and family.

Now, as anyone who’s read me for any amount of time knows, I’m comfortable being an out-of-step political type. I’m not going to sign on to anything just because “everyone else is doing it.” But with the recent debate about the power of endorsements, I’ve realized that the most powerful endorsements are the ones made by those closest to us.

I will ultimately vote with my mind because, frankly, I’m hard headed. But I wonder, do many of you find yourselves drifting one way or another based of the opinions of your closest friends and family? Do you ever think you’ve been lulled into supporting a position or a candidate because you’re just “going with the flow?” And since I know most of you Donklephant readers are as hard headed as I am, let me also ask: do you ever suspect your friends and family are just falling into agreement because that’s the easy thing to do?

“Each candidate has strengths and weaknesses, and experience does matter. But what matters more in my opinion is character and judgment. And judgment meaning who is it that you bring around, who is it that you listen to? Can you make the right decisions for the right reasons on behalf of your country and the world?”

Hagel expressed exactly what I think Obama has to convince swing voters to believe: that Obama’s judgment is so superior to John McCain’s that the experience gap isn’t important.

So, do you think Obama can make that point to those voters who are still on the fence? And, if so, what does he need to do?

I’m 43. When Tony was my age, if he’d known he had 10 years left, would he have done anything differently? If I could look in to the future and know the date of my death, would I do anything differently? Would I work less, spend more time with my family? Would I stop getting up at 5 a.m. during the week to sneak in my 30-minute workout just so I can stop gaining weight at an exponential pace?

Would any of us change?

Given Tim Russert’s untimely passing, I think these questions are particularly apropos.

It reminds me of the saying, “What would you do if you knew you could not fail?”

In the end, I think we do what we can with the skills and thoughts and emotions we have at the time. And because I consider life as a continuous series of changes, most of which are imperceptible, perhaps the point isn’t to think of all of the things we would do, but instead enjoy the things we are doing.

Discuss.

In 1974, Congress mandated a 55 mph speed limit in part to combat the Arab oil embargo, so there is precedent for this kind of regulation.

But is it a good idea?

Are we at a point where we need to force Americans to conserve gas use?

Discuss.

I stole the pic and line from Ezra, but what about Bill?

After all, he’s got the swing state, gubernatorial experience, a demonstratable post-partisan track record and his foreign policy credentials are literally second to none in this or nearly any VP crop I can remember.

Plus, his endorsement of Obama came at a time when the junior senator really needed something to take the focus off of the Jeremiah Wright dust up, and don’t think Richardson didn’t know that.

Discuss…

So, I’m curious, have you made any changes in your life to account for the rise in gas prices? If not, how high would gas prices have to reach before you made changes?

To be fair, I haven’t read My Beautiful Mommy, but still…that title is pretty bad.

If this is just a book about the idea that “mommy” is going to have some work done and how to explain it to a kid, that’s one thing. But if it’s more of a story about “transformation” from normal to “beautiful,” well, that seems incredibly unethical to me.

From Newsweek:

What’s the market for a children’s picture book about moms getting cosmetic surgery? No one specifically tracks the number of tummy-tuck-and-breast-implant combos (or “mommy makeovers,” as they’re called), but according to the latest numbers from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, breast augmentation was the most popular cosmetic surgery procedure last year, with 348,000 performed (up 6 percent over 2006). Of those, about one-third were for women over 40 who often opt for implants to restore lost volume in their breasts due to aging or pregnancy weight gain. There were 148,000 tummy tucks—up 1 percent from the previous year.

Salzhauer got the idea for a book after noticing that women were coming into his office with their kids in tow. He says that mysterious doctor’s visits can be frightening for children. “Parents generally tend to go into this denial thing. They just try to ignore the kids’ questions completely.” But, he adds, children “fill in the blanks in their imagination” and then feel worse when they see “mommy with bandages,” he says. “With the tummy tucks, [the mothers] can’t lift anything. They’re in bed. The kids have questions.”

Here’s one doctor’s understandably snarky response…

First, let’s consider toddlers’ views on what makes a person beautiful. Let’s be honest, isn’t it annoying how clueless they are of true standards of beauty? All children seem to think, for example, that their moms are beautiful, even if she has a big nose or sagging skin…or worse.

I ask you: is this a healthy viewpoint? If we don’t teach our toddlers otherwise, won’t they take this misguided view of beauty into later childhood, even adulthood? Imagine the consequences to society if everyone was considered beautiful in his/her own way.

And should we be praising toddlers for how they look, when they invariably possess offensive pot bellies and gross rolls of ‘baby fat’? Give me a break. Who really likes a big fat stomach on any human of any age? You don’t like one on yourself, why should you on a child? Imagine the let-down in store for them when their cherished jelly bellies become objects of ridicule by their peers!

Agreed. Reinforcing artificial standards of beauty so early in life with a book like this is nothing more than clever marketing.

This bother anybody else?

Sorry for the sarcasm, its just my nature. Anyway, what do you think…was Governor Romney using the child as a prop to promote his family values image, or was he just proudly showing off his beautiful baby grandson? I think a little bit of both.

1. Strengthen the No Child Left Behind law and promote a grand bargain for teachers and principals — professional pay for professional accountability.

2. Provide universal early-childhood education.

3. Double federal support for basic scientific research.

4. Make Social Security solvent by 1) indexing future retirees’ benefits to inflation (not wage rates); 2) lifting the income cap on payroll taxes; 3) establishing a personal savings account system.

5. Means-test Medicare benefits and push the U.S. health care industry toward rewarding providers for keeping people healthy, not simply treating illness.

6. Reform the U.S. health care system by making private insurance coverage mandatory, with tax credits available for people and small businesses that can’t afford premiums.

7. Control America’s borders with fences, where needed. Provide legal opportunities for guest workers and avenues for illegal immigrants to earn legal status.

8. Enact an escalating carbon tax. Expand domestic oil drilling. Encourage all forms of available alternative energy, including nuclear power and “frontier” alternatives.

9. Rebuild America’s infrastructure with maximum possible use of private funding and competition to improve efficiency.

10. Reform America’s tax laws to make them fairer and simpler and encourage savings and investment, rather than consumption.

Whatcha think? My initial reaction: sounds expensive. But it’s definitely more pragmatic and achievable than what we usually see from the Dems and Repubs. I’ll be interested to see if the Oklahoma gathering produces anything like this.

Could we create a class of soldiers who merely serve within our borders, but would never be called upon to go overseas to prosecute wars? Could there be a volunteer aspect inside of a mandatory military class?

What are your thoughts?

There’s a good conversation going on in our “God Or No God?” post about just that.

Check it out and add your thoughts.

Oh, joy. I always get excited at the prospect of more Phyllis Schlafly (pictured) on my television.

On the one hand, why not? On the other hand, it’s arguable whether such an amendment is even necessary any more, given the current culture and the fact that many states already have laws against gender discrimination.

I do think that some of the “con” arguments advanced in the article are pure scare tactics, however — like the one that says the ERA would require abortions be legal.

I also like how Schlafly has simply updated her list of bogeymen. In the 1970s she said the ERA woud lead to women being drafted and unisex bathrooms. This time around, it will “compel courts to approve same-sex marriages and deny Social Security benefits for housewives and widows.”

Okay, Phyllis. Sure.

From NeoMugwump…

We are Republican because we believe in limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and personal responsibility;

We strive for Unity without the tyranny of uniformity, because the greatness of the Republican Party, like the greatness of America, is found in our tolerance for diversity; [...]

We pledge, in short, to be “Cody Republicans�: a Republican who is very traditional in holding the ideals of rugged independence, integrity, fairness and being respectful of your friends and neighbors; and persistent in our commitment for those ideals to apply equally to all.

My question is simple: Does the Republican party uphold most of those ideals anymore?

Discuss.

Pretty interesting, no? I bet we can trace these numbers directly back to our failed, prejudiced “war” on drugs.

And maybe you’re saying right now, “Prejudiced? Prove it!” Well, you need look no further than the vast disparity between the prisons sentences for people who do crack and people who do cocaine…

Pharmacologically the same drug, crack and powder cocaine are treated very differently within the walls of our justice system. Current policy generates a 100 to 1 penalty ratio for crack-related offenses. For instance, possession of only 5 grams of crack-cocaine yields a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence, however it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to prompt the same sentence. Moreover, crack-cocaine is the only drug for which the first offense of simple possession can trigger a federal mandatory minimum sentence.

I wonder which portion of the population is more likely to smoke crack…hmm…try 90% African-American. The portion of the population most likely to be caught with cocaine? Caucasian.

And yet, our hands are tied. Who’s going to do anything to protect crack heads? That’s political poison if I’ve ever heard it. But what we can do is call for a common sense approach to drug offenses. Locking people up doesn’t work. It’s time to champion something else that applies to all so those who fall through the “cracks” won’t have to serve 100 times the penalty because they’re black.

(via: CATO)