Submitted to a Candid World

Truly, humanity has come a long way. In the early Muslim states, when economic or military woes beset the empire, the state’s stance on Judaism (and its Jewish subjects) went from a surprising level of egalitarianism to outright persecution, beheadings, you name it. Europe was no better. All levels of society, from villager to Bishop, blamed the evils of the day (war, plague, economic collapse) on Jews, Muslims, and anyone who didn’t toe the particular religious line. It was a bad way to live: persecution and scapegoating dignify neither the persecuting majority, nor the persecuted minority.

Since those days, the world has seen where the road of persecution leads, and it’s not happy. After the horrors borne from hate of the twentieth century, you would have thought that the world learned its lesson: you would be wrong. A new editorial by Dan Henninger in the Wall Street Journal proves that the lesson is, at most, half-learned: rather than taking from the dark periods of human history an acknowledgment that persecution and scapegoating are themselves wrong, we’re apparently still comfortable to run with that idea, and only shift our targets.  Oh, didn’t you hear? America’s current economic crisis is not a result of complex and multi-layered factors. It’s actually quite simple: atheists and secularists did it.

It has been my view that the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous. That danger flashed red in the fall into subprime personal behavior by borrowers and bankers, who after all are just people. Northerners and atheists who vilify Southern evangelicals are throwing out nurturers of useful virtue with the bathwater of obnoxious political opinions.

The point for a healthy society of commerce and politics is not that religion saves, but that it keeps most of the players inside the chalk lines. We are erasing the chalk lines.

Apparently, conservatives are all for personal responsibility, until blaming society gives them a chance to stigmatize unpopular elements on the left.

FAIL.

Henninger’s willingness to myopically oversimplify global trends to a narrow culture war blame-game is nothing short of shocking: I expect this type of idiocy out of Human Events on a bad day, and from Phyllis Schlafly ever day, but the Journal? Are we finally seeing Murdoch’s influence creeping in on the Times? At the risk of sounding too much like Olbermann, Henninger should resign; his “article” is unscholarly and needlessly inflammatory, and the Journal shouldn’t be either.

While the article isn’t really worth a merit’s debate, I’ll do Henninger the courtesy of meeting his arguments partially on substance: the “social decay” narrative he’s invoking is as old as civilization, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. Ever since Livy and Plutarch, reactionary forces have invoked the notion of chronological primitivism - “things were better back then, when we stuck by tradition!” - to argue against progress, both social and physical. It’s never told the whole story, and Henninger’s iteration is no better. I can concede quite happily that, for some, religion does keep individuals within “the chalk lines”: for even fewer, perhaps, it’s sadly the only force capable of checking wanton criminality. But religion has just as often allowed irrational actors to draw “chalk lines” to justify actions clearly contrary to any notion of objective morality: kill the Jews, enslave the blacks, burn the witches, stone the gays, sack Constantinople. At worst, then, religion is an excuse to ignore the “chalk lines” inherent in the human condition. But even at best, religion is incomplete as a moral code to bind an entire civilization together. No society has ever been stable because of its religiosity - arguing to the contrary either misstates and romanticizes history, or reduces to a “No True Scotsman” fallacy (”well, they weren’t religious enough to be truly stable”). A healthy society should inculcate a sense of civic responsibility independent of individual, subjective, private beliefs while supplementing a strong objective moral code with laws and regulations to check the outliers. Henninger’s solution and resort to the blame-game does neither.

Perhaps the saddest thing about Henninger’s article, though, is that it admits of no remedy other than “kill the secularists.” If that’s the best solution that we as a country can think of, then perhaps we’re in worse shape than I thought.

A whopping 12 MPG and as bloated as its maker

There was a bloodless revolution in Congress this week. It made the main pages of news websites, but I suspect it was filtered as a “So what?” by most Americans, who have plenty on their plates as it is.

I am talking about the replacement by the Democratic Caucus of John Dingell (D-MI) with Henry Waxman (D-CA) as head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Dingell has represented the 15th District of Michigan (adjacent to Detroit) since 1955. There is no doubt about his party allegiance: Dingell is and has been a reliable and powerful liberal Democrat his entire career. But Dingell has also worn a hefty albatross for most of his career: the U.S. auto industry. No one can blame him. He is a Michigan representative. As longtime chair of the energy committee, Dingell’s loyalty to the industry motivates his historical foot-dragging on stricter emission and fuel-efficiency standards and legislation.

A major thrust of Obama’s campaign was the retooling of the U.S. auto industry as part of his plans to move the country towards energy independence and to create jobs with infrastructure spending. Nothing about Dingell’s record suggests he would oppose most of Obama’s efforts. There is undeniable evidence, though, Dingell wouldn’t necessarily be the greasiest skid effecting immediate legislation on many key issues.

Enter Henry Waxman (D-CA). Waxman represents a large chunk of West Los Angeles, including Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. As a powerful member (often chair) of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Waxman has been a thorn in the sides of presidential administrations for many years. Most recently, he got Alan Greenspan to admit the free market doesn’t work as well as Greenspan originally thought. He has also served on Energy and Commerce subcommittees, and has been an ardent supporter of strict environmental legislation, much of which Dingell opposed or stalled in deference to the auto industry.

Both Dingell and Waxman serve their constituencies vigorously. Dingell protects the auto industry, but Waxman represents a geographical area that has suffered as a result of Dingell’s efforts. When Detroit is protected from integrating environmental protections in their production chains, air quality in Los Angeles (and Houston … and Atlanta … and St. Louis … and New York …) declines and global (including Detroit) warming increases. The country’s reliance on Mid-East oil continues, and innovation in the domestic auto industry stagnates compared to European and Japanese companies.

I agree with Waxman that he is better able to move Obama-platform legislation forward through the energy committee, legislation that will help the environment and provide critical foundation support to any economic-stimulus package and, certainly, any auto-industry bailout that passes in the next year.

Dingell’s ouster sends a very strong message that “change we can believe in” is coming.

Miniver coughed, and called it fate, and kept on drinking.

At least among the politically minded, dissecting the recent general election seems to have become something of a national pastime. I can hardly claim immunity: the various speculative, storied narratives that crop up are simply too interesting for any self-respecting pundit to resist and, owing to a dearth of facts and a plethora of statistics, it’s easy to craft a respectable story of what Obama “means” for America. Phyllis Schlafly, however, is another story: although its “yelling at shadows” style is unfortunately relevatory of her personality, Schlafly’s contribution to the national dialogue is one of the most thoroughly inept essays I’ve yet seen. Let’s examine.

Schlafly’s approach to the 2008 election centers on the question of why “the super-majority of votes gathered by Ronald Reagan” - “the Reagan Democrats” - deserted the Democratic Party. Her answer is surprisingly candid: the economy mattered, McCain didn’t deliver, and the Republicans failed to distract Ohio with divisive social issues. Having failed to foment false fears of gay marriage, the Republicans lacked a means of manipulating middle-class voters into voting against their own self-interest:

The Reagan Democrats were the biggest loss to Republicans when the No. 1 issue turned out to be the economy and the loss of good jobs. A New York Times headline gleefully proclaimed, “Goodbye Reagan Democrats.” The marriage amendment in Ohio won big in 2004, carrying Bush to victory in what turned out to be the crucial state. In 2008, there was no overriding social issue, so the Reagan Democrats returned to their comfort zone in the Democratic Party.

I can’t fault her for accuracy, nor can I fault her assessment of recent history:

If Republicans want to win future elections, they will have to field candidates who defend U.S. jobs, parents’ rights in public schools and the institution of marriage.

In other words, distraction works. As Bush proved, there’s something to that. Lacking solid economic policy, the fastest way to a Republican return could be to pass on the opportunity to develop it and instead return to the old, well-worn rut of culture war issues in the hopes of scaring enough centrist voters into the waiting arms of the theocracy. It has worked for the Republican Party (at least temporarily), so Schlafly is right to ask, “could it work again?”

She goes astray, though, when she answers “yes.” The lesson of 2008 is that a party dedicated to big-government social policy and a laserlike focus on policing the common morality makes a poor companion to small-government economics, leading inevitably to schizophrenic tickets like McCain/Palin. Social retrogression alone can’t form a governing philosophy, but it doesn’t work with conservative, Reagan-era economic philosophy. By preferencing the former over the latter, Schlafly’s vision for the Republican Party is a vision for a PAC, or (at most) a shadow government. It’s not a full-fledged vision of American governance. There’s a reason the Know-Nothing and Anti-Masconic Parties didn’t work. Especially if Obama makes good on his promise of bipartisanship, the Schlafly Strategy won’t work again.

Setting aside her “thesis,” the remainder of Schlafly’s no-think piece amounts to a screed against her favorite bogeymen, and adds nothing of value to American political discourse. Schlafly blames first the youth:

The young people — who voted two-to-one for Obama — were another group that Republicans lost in 2008. They are the generation that has come out of the public schools since they have been teaching political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, William Ayers-style “social-justice,” self-esteem and other nonsense instead of reading, math and American history.

Because, obviously, multiculturalism and diversity are utterly incompatible with any study of American history. What do either of those values have to do with a nation founded by immigrants on principles of religious tolerance, and how do they inform any study of - say - the Civil War? And don’t get me started on self-esteem. If American children are continually hearing about how they can do anything, how will they ever understand the spirit that inspired such monumental, against-the-odds victories as World War II and the Apollo Program? No, best to teach the Schlafly version of American history: “now, kids, how else is slavery like gay marriage?”

And, finally, it wouldn’t be a Schlafly essay without a tirade against women:

The third group that Republicans lost in 2008 was unmarried women. By a colossal 40-plus point spread, unmarried women voted for Barack Obama by 70 percent to 29 percent.

One explanation is economic: The women who cast off husbands look to Big Brother Government to support them. They vote for the party that promises more benefits from the Welfare State. [. . .] The feminists have continued their campaign against marriage through Joe Biden’s favorite legislation, the Violence Against Women Act, which provides a billion dollars a year to feminist centers to promote divorce and oppose reconciliation. The act is based on feminist ideology that women are naturally victims entitled to tax-paid legal and financial assistance, while men are naturally batterers who are not entitled even to due process protections.

Let’s be clear: Biden’s Violence Against Women Act, which lost significant effect when U.S. v. Morrison struck its remedial provisions on Commerce Clause grounds, continues to fund only the prosecution of perpetrators of domestic violence. In the preceding remarkable paragraph, Schlafly goes from opposing the persecution of violent criminals (on the grounds that imprisoning abusers promotes divorce) to characterizing federal prosecutors as a form of “legal and financial assistance” that perpetrates a culture of victimhood. Call me crazy, Phyllis, but I think that when a husband beats his wife, the sanctity of the family has to yield to the sanctity of the woman’s life.

Perhaps the one good thing about Phyllis Schlafly’s online columns is that they’re not that popular. Judging by the substance of the comments on her piece, Schlafly’s reception even on conservative websites is almost uniformly negative. And, inferring popularity from the number of comments to her piece, she’s less popular than Ann Coulter by more than an order of magnitude. I’m not sure what that says about America, but it says something.

Schlafly’s inability to move beyond extreme, sexist, subordinating visions of American culture is emblematic of the Republican Party’s own failings. GOP: cut her and her kind loose. You’ll be better for it, and so will we.

With apologies to E.A. Robinson.

If the Mormon Church thought all they had to do was bankroll a ballot initiative banning gay marriage, they were wrong. For the sake of Prop. 8 supporters, the Mormons better still have their checkbooks out.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to listen to arguments from both sides of the Prop. 8 battle. The argument from Prop. 8 opponents is that the initiative is more than a simple amendment; it rather attempts to change fundamental principles of the California state constitution, and such revisions require more than a signature drive and a simple majority of popular vote.

Interesting to note in the meantime is the attitudinal shift among the California electorate. Contrary to many Republican and conservative assertions, a more tolerant bent is taking hold.

In March 2000, California primary voters passed Prop. 22, the language of which prohibited the state from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. In spite of people who opposed the measure (like, me, for instance) the initiative passed by miles (61% to 39%, among 7.53 million voters).

In November 2008, 36% more voters voted on Prop. 8 (10.27 million), including record numbers of blacks (who historically oppose gay-rights legislation), yet Prop. 8 — the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage — passed by a margin of only about five percentage points (approx. 52% to 48%). In fact, 14% fewer people who voted for a presidential candidate also voted on Prop. 8. It is customary to see a decline in voting numbers down ticket, but supposedly Prop. 8 was a real firebrand for Californians who wanted to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. Where was the mandate?

In 2000, social conservatives made sure to get the vote out on this issue during a primary election. The ballot was long — presidential, senate, state primaries along with 20 propositions. Still the drop-off in vote from presidential primary to Prop. 22 was only 1.3%, and nearly 3% more people voted on the far down-ticket Prop. 22 than the up-ticket Prop. 13 (a bond measure for safe drinking water). In 2008, though, Prop. 8 opponents were not going down without a fight. I think it is safe to say, too, that the electorate is exceedingly conflicted about actively denying equal protection to gays.

So what happened between 2000 and 2008? Well, Ellen got her own Emmy-winning and hugely popular television talk-show; gay marriage as an issue had the attention of several state supreme courts; Gavin Newsom presided over gay marriages in San Francisco; the Republican mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, reversed position and decided he would sign a city order in support of recognizing gay marriage. (If you have given in to cynicism and think that there is no way a politician can think for himself or stand on personal principle, you MUST watch Sanders’ 2007 press-conference statement below.)

Ames is correct when he says ultimately the issue of gay marriage is not a political one; it is a judicial one, and I believe the trend is for the populace to grow increasingly tolerant even as court decisions are made over the next decade or so.

Conservapedia is so interesting precisely because it is so very, very bizarre. Because of the breadth of its all-encompassing mission, no less than the complete rewriting of American history & constitutional thought to prop up a theocratic vision of America, and the poor quality of execution, it represents a compelling social experiment for those willing to scrutinize it closely enough (frequent showers are advised). Think of it as a glimpse into “creationists in the mist”: a way of observing the manifold failures of theocracy in America, an idea that we all would prefer to make sure comes no closer to realization.

The results of the “study” are undisputable (except, perhaps, by the test subjects themselves). Truly, Conservapedia stands as a stunning rebuke of the effectiveness and desirability of theocratic theory in practice. Theocracy in Conservapedia has, over its nearly two years of operation, created a noxious atmosphere of distrust, near-dictatorial absolute ideological conformity, and denialism. Vignettes are instructive: in previously commenting on Conservapedia, I’ve highlighted their descent into a mob mentality, the tendency for even true believers to push games of ideological one-upsmanship into serious internal witchhunts, the utter failure of absolute ideological conformity to provide a responsible education or even basic preparations for citizenship, and the founder’s perpetration of the idea that the law is a weapon for subjugation of opponents. One theme unites all these disparate themes: because fundamentalism is a flawed philosophy, governments based on unbending dogma (as opposed to reason) must either tend towards dictatorships, or be forced to recognize the errors of their ways and implode.

Last month, Conservapedia took another step on the path towards wiki-dictatorship (wiktatorship?). In response to concerns about “parodists” and “vandals” disrupting the community, founder Andy Schlafly entertained the possibility of forcing users to submit to invasive scans of the “cookies” on their computers, to discern if users visit “liberal” websites. If they do, they would be banned. Key moments in the discussion (if Andy sees this article, he’ll purge his userpage to burn the evidence):

I was thinking that a lot of parodists and vandals seem to be signing up. I wonder if there would be a way when someone signs up to scan the cookies stored on their web-browser and if there are any parodist or liberal websites in their history then it would prevent sign up. What do you think? QWest 19:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Clever suggestion. Something to think about. Thanks.–Aschlafly 20:00, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

[ . . . ]

If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear. Bugler 14:01, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Also, criminals forfeit rights by engaging in unlawful behavior. Police will frisk and search the clothing of a burglar, for example, and he has no justified complaints based on privacy.–Aschlafly 14:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

That was a long time ago, you might say. Oh, but then you don’t know Conservapedia. It’s only gotten worse in the interim: as one user put it, Conservapedia is witnessing “the breakdown of Charismatic Authority,” and its replacement with total ideological domination.

Impressively Orwellian, and further proof that neither fundamentalist Christianity nor theocratic “wiki-government” cannot hold its own in a fair intellectual fight. Albeit on a smaller scale, this is the inevitable terminus of a breakdown between the wall between church & state. Consider it a cautionary story.

Keep smiling. You earned it.

The year 1992 gave America its redemption from the Reagan years but, across the Pond, progressive politics was in a much, much worse state. Despite significant electoral gains, Neil Kinnock’s Labour Party failed to retake a majority in the House of Commons, and 10 Downing passed to John Major, a pale shadow of Lady Thatcher possessed of most of her ideas, but little of her intellect and charm. The message was clear: even Lady Thatcher’s coattails could beat the Labour Party - a narrow, far-left, quasi-socialist party - any day of the week.

And yet, in the space of four years, Labour transitioned from the perennial, sidelined minority party to the undisputed master of Parliament. Labour has held power for more than a decade now, endured an unpopular war and, now, and still retains some home for the future in the form of the one man seemingly capable of navigating the global financial crisis (ahem: Gordon Brown). An unlikely hero, yes, but a hero nonetheless. How did they do it?

Easy. Compromise and a charismatic leader. In a process begun by Kinnock but brought to its fantastic conclusion by Tony Blair, Labour sought the middle on the issues that made it an unpopular fringe group, abandoning nationalization of industry as a central party plank (yes: they were that far left), and tacking right on a whole host of economic issues. By usurping the best of Thatcher’s ideas without compromising most of his leftist bent, Blair succeeded at winning over the elusive middle, and built for himself a party that, despite serious troubles, seems poised to retain power even in the upcoming general election.

The lesson to draw from Tony Blair - go slightly right, young liberal, and grow up with the country - should sound familiar. It’s how we just won an election or, more appropriately, how the Republicans lost an election. John McCain’s campaign style, and especially (you knew it was coming) his selection of Sarah Palin, clearly demonstrated that the Republican Party, for one reason or another, is incapable of seeking the center. The Religious Right ties their hands on social issues (Sarah Palin), and the business lobby ties their hands on economic issues (McCain sudden love affair with the Bush tax cuts). Culture war elections are the exception, not the rule, and this year, when the trend reasserted itself with a vengeance, McCain was unable to compensate appropriately. Fortunately for us, and fortunately for America, the Democrats seized on the opportunity and outflanked the GOP.

While the Republican Party spent the past eight years (and the previous pivotal eight months) catering to and contracting a narrow base, the Democratic Party under Dean spent its time expanding its base, winning Senate and House seats with moderate, inoffensive Democrats, taking a middle-left approach to culture war issues, and shedding the unfortunate stigma that John Kerry’s party exemplified. Labour’s vulnerability was its economic policies, which actually resembled socialism; the Democrats vulnerabilities were cultural. In large part, Howard Dean patched over those defects. After inheriting a moderate Democratic Party repackaged to dodge culture war bullets, all Barack Obama had to do was deliver on an even-tempered message, and appear relatable. Mission accomplished.

Unfortunately, the process of “ideological triage” was not without significant casualties. In a very real way, gay rights may be to Barack Obama what nationalization was to Tony Blair: the farther-left issue that the middle-left party simply cannot touch. But even this is no big loss. Not because gay rights are unimportant, though: frequent readers will know that my feelings are quite the opposite. Rather, gay rights can best be resolved by the non-political branch (the judiciary), and the Democratic Party will be in line to pull the right levers there with minimal attention. Making gay rights an election issue actually hurts the cause at this point, at least in the long run. So if the Democrats have left behind important issues, we haven’t left them far behind.

Especially as the American consensus continues to shift left on important issues like abortion, stem cells, privacy, and even gay rights, the Democratic Party can continue to live the Blair dream of bridging the center and the left so long as it conducts itself in a bipartisan manner (keeping Lieberman was a good start). Plausibly occupying the center is the key. That the Republicans seem so willing to shoot themselves in the foot by going farther right (go Palin go!) will just make it that much easier for centrist Democrats to outflank Republicans towards the high middle ground.

Of course, it’s easy to over-state the Blair comparison. Blair eventually faced his political reckoning in the form of the Iraq War, in which he nearly destroyed both his party and his country. Blair’s mistake should stand as a constant reminder that the center isn’t good for its own sake, and some party planks just aren’t worth abandoning. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and the electorate will eventually figure it out.

A special plea to British readers, and CompPol junkies:
Please, tell me if I’m wrong. It’s the only way I’ll learn.

I found this video via How the World Works (one of my favorite economic blogs). The video shows a man going through the Detroit Free Press’s special real estate section, listing foreclosures in Wayne County, Michigan. He reminds us that this mega listing is before the (imminent) failure of the Big Three.

On the West Coast, the L.A. Times reports that for the first time since the housing bubble burst, the majority of homes sold in Southern California in one month (October) were foreclosures.

The magnitude of the foreclosure epidemic is shocking, and it’s only going to get worse … more layoffs, more business failures … also, as people who might be in a position to buy continue to postpone purchases, waiting to see if prices drop futher, deflation is bound to set in …

We’re in a vicious cycle. Anyone dizzy yet?

Bill said what?!

It must be nice to be William Kristol, to be able to live in a world of delusion and denial without repercussion and to build a celebrity career on a fantastic self-perception of perfection. Get it people: Kristol is infallible.

His column in the New York Times yesterday, on first skim, seems reasonable enough. The Republican Party is in trouble. Its economic message in mired in historical failure (Hoover’s mismanagement of depression economics), and the very loud constituency that defends the sanctity of free-market and supply-side economics is not helping matters. If the Republicans are going to regain power, something must be done about the Party’s economic platform.

Fair enough, but note this little pearl:

A hawkish foreign policy, social conservatism and middle-American populism aren’t the problems. Those elements, as embodied on the Republican ticket by John McCain and Sarah Palin, produced a respectable 46 percent of the national vote …

Essentially, social conservatism and neocon foreign policy, the latter being Kristol’s birthright, are the only factors keeping the Republican Party afloat. It’s the supply siders who ruined everything! With the stroke of the keyboard, Kristol easily absolves himself of any responsibility, as a leading conservative intellectual, for the failure of his party. His pronouncement reflects an easy presumptuousness akin to Sarah Palin’s in declaring herself innocent before release of the Branchflower Report.

Reality check: The problem with the Republican Party is bigger than the sum of Kristol’s “big three” components: supply siders, neocons, and social conservatives. The bigger whole is a deep-seated rigidity and self-righteousness that prevent quick adaptation and reasoned, inclusive debate within the party. I have long marveled at the Republican Party’s ability to circle the wagons to great success in national elections, but the 2008 election showed some serious weaknesses in this favorite Republican strategy. The Party had failed to coalesce voices of dissent in framing its platform, but it remained ever-rigid and ever convinced of its own mandate to protect the “real America.” It was a hollow sell, and showed the Party’s inability to handle very real crises.

The denial and delusion borne out of such self-righteousness is front and center in Kristol’s column: It’s not me; it’s everyone else! But what does Kristol care? As he told John Stewart on October 30: “If you’re a liberal, you should be for Obama; if you are a conservative, you should be for McCain. It’s not a psychodrama. It’s just an election” (4:50).

Seriously epic. This would be something to put in the sidebar, but you really have to hear the audio yourself. Please listen to as much - or as little - of the following audio clip as you feel necessary, and, if you want, download it yourself.  Basic overview: a very, very wealthy PUMA managed to buy up some airtime on a local Pacifica radio station in Houston, Texas. For about an hour or so, she subjected my erstwhile hometown to the regular run of PUMA insanity, from primary denialism (”Obama broke the rules by following the rules that he and Hillary agreed to!”) to spinning volunteer programs as forced labor (16:50). High point: the PUMA radio host - Jennifer - claims to have a law degree, than accuses Obama of ignoring the Constitution’s rules for the orderly management of primaries.

Dear readers - please skim the Constitution, and tell me if you ever notice anything about primaries. Anyways, have a listen.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Some highlights…

• To hear a Hillary delegate who’s well-aquainted with the primary process explain why the PUMAs are wrong, over their angry objections, skip to 29:30;
• To hear a guy call them out on Hillary breaking her own rules, skip to 17:20;
• To hear why PUMAs censor comments on their blogs (hint - because they lose, hard), skip to 37:10, and keep listening through 41:00, when it becomes clear that PUMAs were pro-Iraq War (oops!).
• To hear a caller put his finger on the pulse of PUMA, remind them that Hillary & Bill asked them to stop, and Jennifer “explain it away” by saying that they’ve “moved beyond Hillary,” turn to 42:00, and stay tuned through 45:00.

Oh, and the fallout for the host station after the PUMAs took control? Have a read yourself: per their official blog, “WTF was that?”

Turning to radio programs hosted by admitted conservatives, “The Great One” Mark Levin is having about one coronary episode per minute on his show as of Friday, and jumping pretty quickly on the opportunity to throw John McCain under the bus for supporting amnesty. The ties that bind: not so strong, actually.

We're halfway there...

It’s been a great month to be on Facebook. To be sure, Facebook’s early membership restrictions (college students only) still shape the site’s demographics, and make it a largely left-leaning community but, in the past month, partisans of both sides have been plainly on display, both for better and for worse. Among the embittered musings of defeated conservative Facebook users, one common theme stands out: I’ve seen more than a few, otherwise intelligent individuals claim that, with Obama’s election, racism is dead (conservative websites echo the argument). And not in a theoretical sense - as in, good for us, yay America - but in the practical sense, complete with suggestions that affirmative action is now unneeded, the NAACP’s job finished, and racist jokes suddenly okay. Though eventually dismissing the idea as ridiculous, NPR has mused on the same, so it bears discussing: is racism dead?

No. Treating racism as “dead” or “over with” strikes me as not only wrong, but also as dangerous. The notion that the election of the first black president implies the defeat of racism is predicated on a belief that cultural progress is directly linear, and quantized: the idea is that, like Kuhn’s conception of scientific revolutions, culture builds to a watershed moment, after which some feat is permanently accomplished, with results imputable to every member of society. Outside of Civilization IV, that’s not how culture works.

For racism to truly be dead, either Obama’s election would have to have spontaneously changed the mind of every racist in America - “oh, guess I was wrong” - or, at least, proved that the overwhelming majority of Americans is not racist. Neither is true. Most obviously, culture rarely works in a top-down fashion and when it does, it doesn’t happen overnight. President-Elect Obama may change the minds of America’s unrepentant racists over time, but the mere fact of his election will not change the mind of anyone who voted against Obama because of his race. The evidence also suggests that not all of Obama’s supporters are “post race.” Both analyses from polling sites and dispatches from reporters indicated that while many of Obama’s supporters voted for him “regardless of” his race, some were unrepentant racists who voted for him “in spite of” his race. The latter category of individual may respect our President-Elect, but may still make unfounded assumptions about the average black man on the street.

Of course, there are also those who will simply recast their racism to appear more palatable. Unfortunately, the rumors about Barack Obama being a “secret Muslim” persist in the darker corners of the internet, and I would argue that this scurrilous “otherizing” of Obama represents the same emotion, and the same harm, as racism.

All of this is to say that we’re not out of the woods yet. There are still those who will think less of an individual because of the color of their skin. One astonishing election alone is insufficient to change that, or prove otherwise. But the critical problem with jumping to the post-race conclusion is in imagining that the problem of racism is simply that people are racist. America will be post-race only when the unfortunate real-world effects of centuries of prejudice are eradicated, and that one black man was elected to the nation’s highest office does not change the fact that, for many African-Americans nationwide, the effects of slavery and prejudice endure in the form of poverty and restricted opportunity. Racism is as much one big, society-wide problem as it is thousands of big, personal problems.

While Obama’s election brings hope, it has not, yet, brought change for those who need it most, and we can’t let one victory blind us to continuing real-world problems.