Explanate!

To follow up on my previous post and the points raised in "Slow Traffic Ahead"'s comment, here is a further explanation of why the Alabama Christian Coalition and others who are leaders in the Body of Christ were wrong to openly oppose Alabama's constitutional amendment.

My principle points are contained in the words "leaders" and "openly". When an individual takes a leadership position in the Church, he speaks for God to the world. This should give all Christian leaders pause, for we as humans know that our words and judgments fall far short of the wisdom of God. Nevertheless, He has called His people to speak for Him and given instructions on what to say. When a leader (pastor or otherwise) speaks in that capacity, his words must be measured against the Bible. Leaders should be slow to speak on anything that the Bible is neutral on, and should never speak on something the Bible is clearly opposed to.

In this case, those who have set themselves up as the voice of God in Alabama's public life put their own political agenda (a Bible-neutral item) ahead of God's law of love. For Christian leaders to speak as such for lower taxes is unwise (because it marries the gospel to a particular political leaning); to advocate lower taxes when the collateral baggage is racism, hate, and disunity is despicable. This was not two amendments, but one, and the leaders involved made it clear that a remote risk of future taxation was a greater threat to them than the present and certain risk of insulting and alienating their black brothers and sisters and diluting the Church's moral authority. Even if racism was not a motive, there is no justification whatsoever for prioritizing low taxation above love for the brethren.

A reader may well ask, But why is this sin grounds for excommunication? It is not heretical, nor do we expect preachers to be sinless in word and deed. Shouldn't we ask them quietly to repent and then leave it between them and God?

Heresy* is one reason for excommunication. However, Paul recommends excommunication of church members in Corinth for engaging unrepentantly in sin so repugnant that it made the church a spectacle of unrighteousness before the world. To me, in our day, this sin is on that level. I understand if others disagree with me, but I think that this destroys the Church's credibility as followers of Christ. There isn't even a whiff of sacrificial love here! Instead, the Church has become an interest group that wants lower taxes and less federal interference. Do we care about civil rights? No. Do we care about showing love to our brothers and sisters of a different race? No.

Do we retain any moral authority if we let this abuse go unpunished? No.

Excommunicate!

Washington Post has an embarrassing story about how Christian leaders are supporting racist provisions in Alabama's constitution. InstantReplay calls for churches to withdraw communion from church leaders who put an anti-Christian political agenda above the command to love one another. No amount of legalese gymnastics can save the Alabama Christian Coalition and others from the cold, hard truth: they are supporting racism and hatred, and dividing the body of Christ. This is no small matter; it is both disgusting in the eyes of man and God and it is destructive to the church. Following the Bible's instructions on such matters, leaders who espouse this evil should be expelled by their denominations and the Body of Christ in American and around the world should renounce them as brothers until and unless they repent.

Introducing: The Regular Staple

Think of him as a small and frustrating piece of stainless steel. An old friend from my Model Arab League glory days, he just began blogging over at The Regular Staple. Pay him a visit and say "hi".

P.S. To what point or motion do you rise, or are you just glad to see me?

Eating With the Poor

A rabbi and a chef in Jerusalem put their heads together to come up with an excellent charity: a restaurant where paying would be voluntary and rich and poor customers would eat side by side, breaking down class barriers and giving dignity to all. The success of the restaurant in attracting the poor - and its failure to keep the rich - have highlighted some of the interesting social problems inherent in social engineering. Write-up in the CS Monitor.

You Learn Something New Every Day

Kramer's first name was "Cosmo". Thanks to the Washington Post.

Search and Destroy

The fact that I don't get as many random and senseless search referrals as before may indicate that search engines have been improving. But there are still some doozies, so this post is dedicated to all of you out in Internetland who are searching high and low for:

• free dream meanings with instant response (5th)
• JFK Replay (10th)
• "19-inch waist" (18th)
• Yasr Arafat (1st on Google... even HebrewGoogle!)
• crises of 1850's that confronted the nation (1st)
• "christians" and "against pork" and "kansas"

The Echo Chamber?

Much has been made - in conservative circles as well as liberal - of Bush surrounding himself with loyalists in his second term. More than partisanship is at stake; all Americans agree that the government should be well-managed and that decisions should be made well. Is the second Bush administration becoming a dangerous 'echo chamber', as some claim?

The two notable replacements in the cabinet - Rice at State, Gonzales at Justice - are close associates of Bush. Lower-profile nominees - Spellings at Education, Miers at White House Counsel - are also old friends. However, before throwing up red flags, we should look at Bush's decision-making style and his own logic behind nominations he knows may be unpopular. Bush is generally characterized as a delegator. He gives subordinates broad authority to make decisions, and has little interest in the details that inform each decision. This has its strengths: expert subordinates can often make better, less political decisions than can a generalist president. It also has weaknesses: inept or out-of-step subordinates can really hurt an administration.

Bush, I think, is attempting to address what he saw as weaknesses in his cabinet. Powell, of course, is a brilliant diplomat, but his star power and differences with the post-9/11 philosophy of the administration made him both unhappy and unwanted. Rod Paige and John Ashcroft were both right-wingers who hurt the administration on a few occasions.

The new voices will not disagree as vocally with the President as Powell or Ashcroft did, but Rice (the only known quantity) has been known to disagree with others in the cabinet. The administration may in fact become more effective with the new faces if the cabinet can be characterized by professional debate rather than ideological infighting.

We will not know how effective the new cabinet is for a few months at least. However, we should treat this cabinet as innocent until proven guilty. Bush values loyalty, but he also values competence, and (with the exception of State), we can reasonably expect each new cabinet-level appointment to be an upgrade in management ability.

Survival of the Fittest

Gallup reports only 35% of Americans believe in evolution, while about the same number disbelieve it, and a full 30% admit they don't know enough. The Bible also polls pretty well, as does Creationism. So much for the liberals in an uproar about the religious Right hijacking the Texas Board of Education; truth is, they're probably doing a good job of representing Texan parents.

A Bad Sign

This is not encouraging:

The U.S. troops came across a large house with a sign in Arabic that said "Al-Qaida Organization," according to footage from a CNN crew embedded with the U.S. Army.

From Associated Press, thanks to Drudge.

WatchBlog

This is a big day for InstantReplay - I officially became a writer for the Watchblog. That's a big step, from a blog with 25 to 30 hits a day, on average, to a blog with 1,700 hits a day. My first article, syndicated below, appeared a few minutes ago on Watchblog.

Casting the Key to Success

Two items in the mainstream media - a Thomas Friedman editorial yesterday, and a breaking news story today - highlighted what will assuredly be the key to creating security in Iraq: effective Iraqi leaders.

Today's news was of a 300-man raid on a major mosque in Baghdad. With Americans serving only as backup, Iraqi troops stormed the mosque and arrested many. It's unclear whether there was a specific meeting there, or if it simply occurred in the middle of Friday prayers.

Throughout the war, Iraqi Guardsmen have been used against religious targets to avoid the images and inferences created by having foreign Christians taking local Islamic sites by force. But I think there's more to this operation than just religious sensitivity - the Coalition leadership is giving Iraqi leaders the experience they need to eventually take the helm.

Friedman dwelt on this issue yesterday in the New York Times:

The reality is this: Where you have individual Iraqi police, National Guard and Army commanders who have bravely stepped forward to serve the new Iraq and are willing to lead - despite intimidation efforts by insurgents - you have effective units. Where you don't have committed Iraqi leaders, all you have are Iraqi men collecting paychecks who will flee at the first sign of danger. The good news: there are pockets of Iraqi leaders emerging throughout the Army and police. The bad news: there are still way too few of them.

One successful operation such as today's may indicate the presence of just one effective Iraqi leader. However, we should watch for - and applaud - each success by Iraqi forces. As anyone who has studied war knows, there is no leadership school like combat, and each success will build the confidence, reputation, and personal toughness of the men who will ultimately be responsible for the security of their own nation.

Can Americans perform difficult military operations better, in general? Assuredly. Our equipment, training, and experience are all vastly superior, and our troops don't have nearby friends and families to slink away to. Yet we must remember that the creation of an effective and experienced Iraqi force is as much a goal as killing off insurgents. In fact, it is more important in the long run.

Our attention is naturally focused on the Americans - our brothers, fathers, and sons - in combat. But in the smoke and blood of Falluja, let's not forget to cheer every advance by the nascent Iraqi security forces. They, not us, will be the true heroes of a successful Iraqi state.

Ph.D.? N.U.? Uh.Oh.

This is depressing - my alma mater is ranked dead last in Econ Ph.D. programs. Granted, the data is ten years old, and NU has shut down and rebuilt the program since being embaressed by this study, but it's still not very confidence-inspiring. Check out Phds.org's ranking system... it's pretty nifty (just out-of-date).

Sickening

I can't believe this kind of murder can still happen on the streets of Europe. Worse, it's an increasing trend.

The Muslim community in Europe needs to start policing itself fast, or it's going to find itself suspect, marginalized, and some of its members deported, which is exactly what the recent events warrant.

Introducing: La Shawn Barber's Corner

I found a blog by a consummate Washingtonian through friends at my new church. Their recommendation was no exageration - La Shawn Barber's Corner is an active, interesting, and unmistakably Beltway blog from a strongly Republican perspective. Check out recent posts on creationism and the DNC chairmanship.

Essay #4

This essay is the fourth (and last) in my series of possible future histories, and I expect it will be the briefest. Most premises have been explored, and the effects of most causes predicted. In Essay #1, I argued that the Clinton-Bush “era” will not be remembered as such, but simply as a continuation of bipolar national politics, with essentially no change. In Essay #2, I presented a case for an era of Republican ascendancy, and in Essay #3 I laid out one way the Democrats could reverse that trend and put themselves in power.

Essay #1 made, I think, faulty assumptions of parity. As shown in the next two essays, the country has generally tilted strongly one way or the other, at least in Washington. All of American history from Jefferson to Reagan can be neatly split into three eras – two Democratic and one Republican. Since this type of theme can only truly be seen in hindsight, I posed two distinct possibilities of how the next few decades could shape up (and thus how the current time will be considered by history).

A reader may ask, Why the obsession with ‘future history’? Isn’t everything that happens history, and everything that doesn’t happen imagination? The answer to these questions is of course yes, in a factual sense. But consider President Woodrow Wilson. He was only the second Democrat elected president since the Civil War, and he only won because Roosevelt and Taft split the vote. History remembers him as one of the most progressive and intellectual presidents ever – a man so far ahead of his time that he failed to engage those of his own time. Imagine how different Wilson would be portrayed by history if his ideas had truly caught on, if the League of Nations had been successful in preventing a Great Depression and a Second World War; if Wilson, not FDR, had been the Democrat to revolutionize American polity and create a new world order under American hegemony.

President Bush faces an enormous question mark on the pages of future history. The success of the Iraq adventure is his biggest uncertainty, but the question these essays have sought to answer is how his two elections will be remembered and of what trends they are indicative.

Here We Go Again

Much has been made of “blue” and “red” America. As much as this is an exaggeration created by the cute maps they have on network television, there is an underlying reality of increased polarization by both left and right. The “bell curve” of American polarity has been stretched and flattened in the last twenty or thirty years, denoting that the right is moving further right and the left is moving further left.

This trend, it can be reasonably expected, will self-perpetuate to a degree, as young people find themselves forced to choose between two ever-more-sharply differing worldviews and align themselves more firmly and earlier than did previous generations of voters. Moreover, there is not yet seen any counter-culture of depoliticization that could (and probably eventually will) end this trend. However, as long as we see deeper polarization in the electorate, we can expect to see deeper rifts in Washington, more pronounced policy swings when power changes hands, and tougher fights over everything from spending bills to judicial appointments.

The “Bush-Clinton Era” will be remembered as the beginning of a half-century or more of increased geographical polarity, to a degree not seen since the 19th century. The Bible Belt will become more and more Republican – not only voting that way in presidential elections, but electing state and local officials on party lines as well. The coasts and big cities will move the other way, ousting Republican governors (as New Hampshire did this year) and putting state legislatures in the hands of liberals.

For the Republican Party, this new alignment began as far back as Barry Goldwater. Whereas Eisenhower was put in place by the traditional “Eastern Establishment” of the G.O.P., Goldwater – and then Nixon and Reagan – bucked the Easterners in favor of a more robust, outspoken, Western Republicanism. Since then, the Christian Right has joined the Republican fold, making it a tough, unified coalition with a coherent set of objectives. The Democrats, as shown previously, are behind the times. By losing candidates’ home states of Tennessee and North Carolina during the last two elections, they have been forced to give up entirely on the South. However, even in a clearly won election in a Republican’s favor, the Democrats found new strength in their established areas. New Hampshire switched to Blue, and the Dems are coming to believe they truly have a replacement for the old “Solid South”.

So what does the future hold? On the presidential level, the results may look much like those from Essay #1. The president will be the man with the best personality and leadership skills and will be elected based on his own merits, as has been the case since World War II. Dig a little deeper, though, and the differences emerge. This is no longer “business as usual” – instead we will see a geographically divided legislature, and at least 40% of the country will hate the president at all times. Third parties will wield disproportionate power by operating in smaller and smaller margins. One party or the other may take a chokehold on the House or Senate (or both) and not let go for years, but it will not represent a mandate so much as a margin. Redistricting will become as important as Supreme Court nominations, and constitutional amendments will become a thing of the past.

Conservative Democrats – a la Zell Miller – are already extinct. Liberal Republicans, such as Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords, are being slowly phased out. We might as well start carrying color-coded identity cards as well, because you’ll know when you go to a bar whether it’s “red” or “blue”, and your church, your community association, your town government, and even your family will be firmly in one camp or the other, and increasingly intolerant of dissent. It’s a bleak picture, but it’s by no means a new one. Humans have been aligning and realigning themselves over pedantia since the beginning of time.

Here we go again.

The Green Isle

The Economist looked at 111 countries to decide which was the best in the world to live in. The result? Ireland.

BBC: The Economist said: "Ireland wins because it successfully combines the most desirable elements of the new, such as low unemployment and political liberties, with the preservation of certain cosy elements of the old, such as stable family and community life." The magazine admits that measuring quality of life is not a straightforward thing to do, and that its findings will have their critics - "except, of course, in Ireland".

So here's a toast to the nation that gave us Guinness, the word "donnybrook", and half the population of Massachusetts!

Down With Children

Politics and children shouldn't mix. Former Senator Gary Hart writes in his book on grand strategy in the 21st century that the federal government should be fiscally responsible...so we can give children health care!?!? How is that going to make us more secure? I don't feel secure when I'm surrounded by healthy children!

Now that motherhood and apple pie are out of style, we have "children" as the political shibboleth. What about the mechanics, the truck drivers, the short order cooks and the accountants? The retirees, the old maids, the divorcees, and the college students? Why do children get billing above the rest of the populace?

Children are dirty, annoying, and contribute zilch to short-term economic growth. They don't make the nation more secure, they don't move technology forward, they display significantly less intelligence than the rest of the population, they spread disease, they can't find Spokane on a map (let alone Saskatoon) and they're cultural ignoramii. And they are the most favored interest group among all levels of government?

Absurd.

T.O.

Enjoy this quote, because it's a once in a lifetime experience.

[Terrell] Owens...could not be reached for comment

From the Washington Post.

Rice, Rice, Baby

All the papers are reporting that Bush will appoint Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State very soon. No real surprises here, and it falls into the pattern of solid but predictable appointments by the Bush administration. Beginning with his selection of Dick Cheney as Vice President in 2000, Bush has valued loyalty above novelty and solidity above political appeal. Largely, this is a good thing: effective people are chosen for important jobs. However, it also leads to a certain inbredness in the administration, which could become palpably more acute with the departure of Powell, a centrist and statesman powerful enough in his own right to stand up to his boss and others, privately if not publically. Rice, however, was a professor before Bush picked her up, and won't have the political freedom to bring a second opinion to administration policies.

Rice replacing Powell is an unmitigated victory for the neo-conservatives; it remains to be seen how severe a defeat it will be for the United States.

Rest In Peace: Yasr Arafat

The terrorist. The peacemaker. The freedom fighter. The negotiator. The hard-liner. The collaborator. The patriot. The martyr. The demon. The saint. The sell-out. The chairman. The president. The dictator. The leader.

The symbol.

Yasr Arafat chose conflict as the theme of his long life. He could have lived in oblivion as a rich engineer in the Gulf. Instead he took up arms and eventually became the symbol of a nation at war, a nation without a home, and lately a nation imprisoned. I hope that all people from all races and nations can join me in hoping Yasr Arafat may rest in peace; that the conflicts he has participated in may flicker out into the grave and respectful somberness of those who mourn.

Guest Post: Gary

Garrett of Worthless & Weak sent me this article on the current topic of America's future political history. InstantReplay welcomes articles from all readers - so please email me.

The South Looking at the US government following the 2000 election, I was a bit confused. The Republicans had an electoral victory, while the Democrats won the popular vote. Therefore, if people voted for congressmen the same way they vote for president, we could assume that the Republicans would hold a majority in the Senate, while the Democrats would hold the House of Representatives. Of course, this was completely untrue. The Democrats, with Jim Jeffords’ defection, held an effective 51-49 majority in the Senate, while the Republicans held the House.

The reason for this, is that while the Democrats have a firm senatorial hold on the “blue” states, (California, New York, Massachusetts), the Republicans didn’t have a hold on the South, as Democrats held the Senate seats for Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and West Virginia. Is this because the Democrats are somehow better organized or better run than the Republicans? Perhaps, but part of this can certainly be explained by looking at the historical voting patterns of the South.

The South, as a block, has historically voted for Democrats. From 1941 (the 68th Congress) until 1967 (the 90th Congress), Democrats in the South (FL, GA, AL, MI, LA, AR, OK, TN, KY, SC, NC, VA, WV) held at least 23 of 28 seats, and averaged 25. Before 1941, I don’t have numbers handy, but the democrats ruled the South just as much, if not more. Since 1967, the Republicans have slowly been winning southern Senate seats.


Looking at Presidential elections, much of the same has occurred. The Democrats won the South almost every year, with the Republicans winning parts of the South only when winning the rest of country by a huge margin (such as Hoover in 28, or Eisenhower in 52 and 56). This happened until 1964, when Barry Goldwater won only the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and his home state of Arizona. The Goldwater election, although the biggest victory for Democrats since Roosevelt, is the changing point in the Republican party. Since 1964, the democrats only swept the Goldwater States in 1976, when Jimmy Carter won, and won Georgia again in 1980 and 1992, and Louisiana in 1992 and 1996.


We can see in the chart that the Democrats before 1968 held the South, and afterwards lost it to the Republicans, who only lost states to Southern governors (Carter in ’76, Clinton in ’92 and ’96). (George Wallace won several Southern States in 1968)

In 2004, there were 9 senators from the area I’ve defined as the South up for re-election. The Republicans won 8 of those seats, 5 of which were previously held by Democrats. Of course, the Republicans now hold the South, the only southern democratic senators left are Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Robert Byrd and John Rockefeller of West Virginia (that’s 20 of 26 seats for the Republicans). Of course, now the Republicans hold a 55-45 majority in the Senate, not quite the 60 they would really like, but a big majority nonetheless.

Looking ahead, the Republicans have little space left to expand, although Bill Nelson might fall, and if Robert Byrd retires, the Republicans could conceivably pick up a pair of seats in the South. And, if the Republicans can hold onto the South for the next 100 years, like the Democrats held the South from 1860-1960, then the Republicans will most likely hold the Senate and the House for the foreseeable future as well.

Finally, the South is becoming more and more relevant, moving from 127 electoral votes in 1972, to 139 today. While this is important, Florida was responsible for all but two of those electoral votes, and Florida is certainly one of the least “red” states, as Bush barely won it in 2000. Despite this, Florida is still Republican, and more so now than in the year 2000.

Essay #3

This essay was originally intended to be the fourth in the series, but today I found two news items that show that future history is not waiting to be written – it’s happening all the time.

The Drudge Report listed both items: Howard Dean is considering a run to replace DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, and pundit James Carville said that the Democratic Party needs to be “born again” and find a compelling message to tell the American people. Carville, a Democrat, essentially agrees with my second essay, saying that Bush won because he presented a coherent worldview. The Democrats failed, he says, because they were too scattered.

So can the Dems succeed in retaking control of policy-making in this country? Carville thinks so. So does Dean. But they have radically different visions of what the Democratic Party needs to become. With Daschle gone and Nancy Pelosi a relative newcomer to Democratic leadership, the DNC chairmanship will be a very important post. Depending on which branch of the party gets it, we’ll see very different dynamics – and, in my opinion very different results – in the coming years.

This essay will be written unfolding like history actually does, showing one series of events and strategies that could propel the Democrats to power, just as Essay #2 showed the possibility of Republican ascendancy. This is by no means guaranteed, even in its broad theme, but it is, I believe, a distinct possibility.

The People’s Party

The Democratic base is liberal. They like men with names like Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. They also like men with names like Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter. And they like men and women with names like Clinton. They live in big cities. More of them have graduate degrees than Republicans; but more of them also have no college at all. They belong to or have great sympathy for various groups that do not fit into Norman Rockwell paintings. Even rich minorities (Jews, Asians) vote Democratic; there’s something about the party that makes people feel included and accepted.

However, as Democrats everywhere are realizing now, there is something very important about the Democratic base: it is smaller than the Republicans’. The party of minorities is in the minority, and has shown a serious deficiency in getting the majority to accept its message. But that is only a recent phenomenon.

From the stock market crash of 1932 until the Republican Revolution of 1994, the Democrats had the majority in fifty of the sixty-two legislatures. They won ten of the seventeen presidential elections during that time. Few would have characterized the Democratic Party as minority-based or out of touch with America’s heartland.

After a successful centrist presidency (Clinton’s) with a powerful and personable chief executive, the Democratic Party awoke in 2000 to find itself further from the American center than it had been since the 1800’s. Somehow, the People’s Party had become the Party of the Elite. The rift deepened in 2004.

After a period of heavy drinking, a period of navel-gazing, and a period of soul-searching, the Democrats realized in early 2005 that something had to be done. Pundits began to theorize they were just waiting for Iraq to collapse; but Middle Americans were rallying behind the flag despite setbacks.

Nancy Pelosi lost her job to Evan Bayh of Indiana. Horrified at the prospect of Howard Dean leading the party into Vermont-style reactionism and withdrawal, Terry McAuliffe and other 1990’s New Democrats prevailed upon Bill Clinton to leave the speaking circuit and take up his party’s chairmanship. Under his charismatic leadership, the socialists and cultural crusaders were shunted to the sidelines. In a Nixon-visits-China sequence, the man who embodied American immorality became the enforcer of a morally conscious platform.

Meanwhile, President Bush realized that Iraq was looking more and more like Vietnam every day. Ayad Allawi was assassinated. The Islamists pulled out of the government. The civil war expanded to include Kurdish and Shiite secessionists. The American military could, of course, still destroy anything it could identify, but identification was becoming more and more of a problem.

With midterm elections looming, Bush set April 1st, 2006, as the final withdrawal date for American forces, excepting a few bases on the Iranian, Kuwaiti, and Jordanian borders. The pullout was in fact complete by March 18th. Bush tried to play it like a victory. Clinton turned it into a political nuke in primetime on the 19th. By admitting a mistake of his own – the Somalia intervention of 1993 – he was able to come across as honest and open, and said their initial mistakes were similar, but it took Bush three years and 3,000 American lives to get out, while Clinton realized he had no chance of success in Somalia after a few months and one bad ambush. Bush’s poll numbers plummeted, and Democrats became energized as the midterm elections approached.

With the typically low turnout and low energy of midterm elections, a motivated base can make the difference, as it did for the Republicans in 1994. With Clinton at the helm, Democrats successfully parlayed disgust with the Iraq failure into a referendum on Bush – though he was not on the ballot. With Republican voters hiding at home, Democrats turned out and turned the House over to Evan Bayh, and reduced the Senate to a 51-48-1 division. With Iraq shattered into bitterly warring provinces, anything less would have seemed like an acquittal.

Clinton was weakening, and he recruited a trio of up-and-coming strategists to be his “hit men”. They applied painful pressure to House Democrats, and forced the party into a straitjacket of fiscal and party-line discipline. He knew, and others now recognized, that to capitalize on their gains in 2006 they would need to attract centrist voters and Republicans disgusted with the derisively labeled “Bush Dividend” – large and growing deficits from the party long associated with fiscal soundness.

Some Republicans also tried to move to the center; the party wonks lined up behind John McCain in the primaries. However, he split votes with George Pataki and Rudy Giuliani, and eventually lost the nomination to Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. The Republican base is conservative.

By convincing his own wife not to run for president, and nominating instead Evan Bayh, who had gone from being known as a little-known “nice guy” from Indiana to being the toughest pork-slasher in Congress, the Republicans found themselves outflanked on economics. The Democrats had successfully used cross-campaigning against pork in 2006, showing each district a litany pork projects in other districts that their candidate had voted for. This they reprised in 2008, often using outdated data, to cement their gains in the House and tip the Senate over by just one vote. Evan Bayh became president in an election that reminded a relieved America that ’00 and ’04 were anomalies, not the norm.

Now in charge, and without Clinton, who stepped down and then passed away, the Democrats had the task of creating a legislative framework that would last beyond the Bush hangover. Certainly fiscal discipline was a centerpiece, though not going as far as a balanced budget amendment. They did, however, champion and pass an amendment prohibiting the overseas deployment of offensive troops without a declaration of war ratified by the Senate.

They raised taxes, introduced a universal health care system, and took the teeth out of the “No Child Left Behind” program, proclaiming their commitment to local control. They shunted social issues to the side; leaving states to decide unsettled matters, and allowing members the rare pleasure of straying from party lines only on moral matters.

Like the Republicans in Essay #2, this robust Democratic majority was formed and will last based on winning American hearts and minds. They found issues neglected by the Republicans that hit home with voters. Fiscal discipline is a virtue; so is peace. By taking serious action to achieve both, they cemented their reputation as the party of the American people. Businessmen, Christians, neo-conservatives, and libertarians remained firmly entrenched in the Republican camp. Some gays, environmentalists, and socialists fled to the Green Party, but the loss on the left wing was far outweighed by serious and lasting gain in the center. Without issues that expand beyond the Republican base, the G.O.P. was firmly planted on the margins, awaiting its turn to capitalize on a failure and win back the hearts and minds of American voters.

Slippery Slope Report

Chicago's Parks Department is planning to use employee GPS monitoring to better manage and oversee their employees. The goal of monitoring workers? Good. The means? Dangerous. The increasing use of GPS and similar systems for "good" purposes will make it cheaper and more normalized for nefarious ones. How long until we put GPS monitors on paroled criminals? Or require them for automobiles?

Modern technology puts into sharper relief than ever the tradeoff between order and freedom. Both are goals for American society, and we must seek a balance between them. Order & centralized control, however, is getting a lot more benefits from modern technology than is freedom. A free society will have some "messiness" around its edges - and that's the price we pay for our own intellectual, religious, political, and economic freedom. The framers of the Constitution believed that order could be maintained by free people who valued their freedom: responsible citizens will follow a social contract willingly. By outsourcing basic "citizen" functions (like working responsibly) to satellites, we increasingly erode the citizen's sense of responsibility.

A society of rulers never lasts. If we outsource our moral and economic and social responsibilities to machines outside our control, we will ultimately find that we have lost those responsibilities and the accompanying privileges.

Essay #2

This is the second in a series of essays on the future history of our time, focusing specifically on how (and if) the Bush-Clinton Years will be characterized in American political history. The first essay was written as history from a historical perspective, ostensibly in 2032. The futuristic author writes of these decades where everything international changed, but everything American stayed the same.

In this essay, I am writing as my normal self, making the case for the success of the neo-conservatives. Many have presumably written this type of thing for real, and many more have tried to figure out how to make it a reality. Writing as a layman, however, with only a cursory knowledge of the Project for a New American Century (from whose name I borrowed my title) and other neo-con think tanks, I will do my best to outline why the derided, decried, and despised George W. Bush could be the first emperor of a Republican dynasty.

Republican Ascendancy and the New American Century

It’s the hearts and minds, stupid.

George W. Bush won the popular vote by 3,500,000 American votes. However, he could have lost it to just 120,000 Buckeyes – approximately the same number as lost jobs in Ohio during Bush’s term. Without attaching blame or credit for the recession and recovery, we can make the inference that in reasonably healthy economic times, Americans vote their conscience, not their wallet.

All polls indicated that John Kerry was the choice of those who voted the economy. By massive margins – especially in Ohio – voters concerned with job loss voted against the incumbent. Yet Bush won.

Pollsters and pundits have already fingered the source of Bush’s victory, and it is creating a new category and vocabulary in politics, and unless the Democrats act swiftly and will give the Grand Old Party a grand old time at the top of the heap in the 21st century.

I call this new category “hearts and minds”. This phrase became popular earlier in the year describing the task that lay before the administration in Iraq; it proved to apply more immediately to our own election. The concept of “hearts and minds” goes beyond the traditional “values” concept, though the two are closely related.

The “values” concept refers to a set of morally loaded political topics such as abortion, gay rights/privileges, civil rights, international human rights, and church-state relations. It also refers to the morality and rhetoric of an administration: does it frame policy morally or economically? Does it allow morality to enter into judgment?

“Values” has become a thorny issue in American politics since 1960. More and more American women repudiated motherhood during the Sexual Revolution, and Theresa Heinz Kerry repudiated apple pie during the 2004 campaign. President Clinton’s peccadilloes and personal immorality led to his impeachment and contributed to President Bush’s election in 2000. Where neither party held a moral edge in the early part of the century, conservative Christians have been increasingly polarized towards the Republicans because of Democrats’ humanist worldview and applications thereof, on the abortion issue more than any other.

However, only recently has the divide between the parties’ worldviews grown deep and broad enough to move beyond being a “values” issue for religious Americans. Bush successfully demonstrated that John Kerry – and much of his party – was out of touch with many of the fundaments of American practical philosophy. More importantly, he convinced them that his worldview was not only more in line with theirs but it was also the right one. Kerry tried – and failed – to make the case that his economic and social initiatives were morally and philosophically superior.

A discussion of these virtues in detail merits discussion. The Bush worldview is a strangely coherent amalgam of neo-conservative, evangelical, civic, and humanist thought. He is traditional on Republican “values”, but his values also include a soft form of nationalism. Unlike Kerry, Bush firmly believes that America is better than other nations in many ways. He believes in democracy – and is willing to risk peace for the sake of expanding America’s sphere of likeminded democracies. He believes that military service carries inherent virtue (though he evaded it himself). Deep down, he believes that you get what you deserve, that some “have nots” are really “deserve nots”. He doesn’t have a sense of low-grade guilt about his own success. He doesn’t spend much time thinking about past wrongs, and thinks that human universalities are more powerful than cultural differences. He’s optimistic and has never drawn a fatalistic breath. He believes that we control our own destiny, and is not convinced that history is bound to repeat itself.

While the above list is by no means exhaustive, it highlights the points on which Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry differ. Much more important than their personal difference on these truths is that their political bases and parties are in general agreement with the candidates – and general disagreement with each other. The underlying cause of the much-talked-of rift in American polity (Red v. Blue, Metro v. Retro, etc.) is the changing value systems of each group. Since 1980, the Left has moved further left, and the Right has moved further right. Neither political conviction is fully tied to a religious belief or a lifestyle, though obvious correlations exist.

The Red-Blue Divide is clear enough; but how does that benefit one party over the other? Is it simply a matter or numbers? Will demographic changes swing the advantage to the Democrats eventually? Is the best way to ensure political dominance to procreate rapidly?

No. Numbers obviously play a role, but the Republican Party is structured in such a way that it can survive – and benefit from – increasing grassroots polarization. By contrast, the modern Democratic Party is a weakening coalition of special interests cobbled together by Franklin Roosevelt and extended during the ’60’s and ’70’s. Do Blacks, labor unionists, Ph.D.’s, homosexuals, liberated women, Hispanics, environmentalists, liberal Christians and atheists really have that much in common? Whence the unified “poor man’s party” of William Jennings Bryan?

If you simplify the Democratic Party into three branches, they are Labor, Liberals, and Minorities. The regulation and big-government policies of the 20th century Democrats were able to serve all these groups reasonably well. The problem arose through success: the Democrats harvested a massive crop of educated, liberal whites who signed on philosophically and politically with Civil Rights and the Great Society. They gave the Democrats a certain ascendancy until the economy began its slow decay in the 1970’s. This group is extensive today, representing perhaps 25% of Americans. They wear ties, they can drive to the ocean, and they’re politically active. So active, in fact that they are indisputably in charge of the Democratic Party in 2004, and the labor bosses of the 1950’s are nowhere to be found.

Lost in the middle of the Red-Blue Divide already is the labor bloc. No longer powerful enough to affect policy – free trade is king in both parties now, many have begun to question their individual allegiances. Combined with a general decrease in union membership and lower-middle-class permanent jobs, the erosion of unions and union loyalty has been a vicious circle politically: with fewer votes, labor can’t affect policy, without making policy, it can’t command loyalty. An unnerving number of workers and farmers voted for Bush in 2000, and even more in 2004; this third of the Democratic Party is being chipped away.

Until now, Blacks and Hispanics are a sure thing for Democrats, and the emergence of a vice-presidential possibility in Barak Obama certainly energizes minority voters. Each of these racial groups represents 13% of the U.S. population, and perhaps 10 million votes each, with some overlap. The word ‘monolith’ doesn’t even come close. Democrats of color have not deserted yet, but Bush has put Herculean efforts into attracting the Hispanic vote and putting Latinos in positions of power in the Republican Party. Here is the crux of the Democrats’ crisis: if they do not change their “hearts and minds” stances, they will ultimately lose minorities. As long as poverty and de facto segregation prevail, so will monolithic voting patterns. But as families establish themselves in the middle class, more and more of them realize how poorly the Democratic Party represents their interests as Americans, however well it may champion them as minorities. With the boundaries of liberalism reaching new frontiers thanks to science and post-Christian philosophy, the Democrats have a poor chance of keeping all their wings under one roof.

The labor wing of the Democratic Party has begun to crumble, and cracks are appearing in the foundation of the minority wing. Without these allies, the liberal elites at the helm have no chance of competing nationally or locally with the Democratic Party.

With a clear mandate, newfound political soil, and a shrinking opposition, the Republican Party – and its neoconservative branch in particular – is poised to usher in not only an American Century but also a Republican Century. While we must assume that something will happen to end this dominance in a few decades at most, the foreseeable future is Republican Red all the way.

Briefly, what will this mean for America and the world? A neoconservative, active foreign policy will, by fits and starts, promote democracy and free trade, and build a satellite system of states to replace the one lost by the demise of the Soviet Union. Look for America to move away from Europe politically, and look for the development of a bipolar economic and political system, with non-violent competition between the two economic centers for satellites and economic privileges.

At home, education will be stressed as Americans reach back in time to revive the American Dream (now known by liberals as the Horatio Alger myth). Science will push boundaries, but at a slower pace and with more hand-wringing and discussion.

The divide between liberals and conservatives will also deepen, and serious problems of representation will trouble our democracy as coastal liberals feel further and further left behind by a nation whose political as well as geographic center is in Kansas.

The realities will be somewhat softer than this description suggests; by Republican dominance, I mean something along the lines of 1800-1860 (the Democrats were so overwhelming that the Whig Party shriveled up and died), of 1860-1930 (only two Democrats were elected president, and these with the Republican vote split; Congress was generally Republican-controlled as well), or of 1930-1994, when Republicans had the House for only four years and the Senate for eight. Despite a very real level of dominance during each period, the two-party system was not at risk of collapse, nor were elections a foregone conclusion. Nor will it collapse in the future, nor will future elections be foregone. Democrats will compete on specific issues, but until they find a unifying philosophy and seam together a coherent bloc of voters, they will fail to lead America in the way that Republicans will.

Battle of Falluja

American and Iraqi troops invaded the residential neighborhoods of northern Falluja this morning, and swarmed through with lighter-than-expected resistance. The NYTimes has a helpful graphic, showing a satellite image of the town and the direction of the U.S. assault.

By invading the oldest, most difficult neighborhoods first, I surmise that U.S. commanders are expecting Resistance tactics to follow the familiar form of soft & fluid initial fighting falling back to a toughened kernal. By pushing them south to newer parts of the city, which are simpler for outsiders to navigate, they'll make it simpler to close the deal. In Najaf, where Resistance headquarters was the great mosque, these tactics were more difficult to implement.

Another new tactic has been giving up the element of surprise weeks before an attack. In a war where civilian casualties are more damaging than Coalition casualties it's important to give civilians all the time - and prompting, in the form of bombs - they could possibly need to evacuate. It also trims the ranks of the Resistance, and lets uncommitted members escape with their lives.

These tactics won't necessarily translate around the world. Iraq is a phenomenally easy place to invade (as the Assyrians, Hittites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, and English can attest), because the terrain offers zero protection to a guerrilla resistance. In Afghanistan, a two-week bombardment would have emptied the city of guerrillas - and they would have disappeared into the mountains. In Iraq, not only is the terrain hostile to guerrillas, but it is friendly to the high-tech invaders. Thus, the Resistance knows their best - their only - chance is to hide among the civilians. Just think how difficult it would be to resist if the invaders placed no value on Iraqi life!

For now, look for an American victory, with greater success than in the Battle of Najaf because of increased efforts at creating an airtight cordon to catch fleeing militants, and presumably to prevent any from escaping with their arms, as they did so egregiously in Najaf.

Rain Despite Clouds

The New York Times editors should be ashamed of this headline: Despite Drop in Crime, an Increase in Inmates. The premise that increased imprisonment of criminals (which the article reports) could itself be a cause of decreased crime didn't even occur to the staff at the New York Times. That's sad.

Essay #1

In this series of essays, InstantReplay is outlining a set of “alternate realities”, one or more of which may characterize the next few decades of American political history. For those of us coming of age in the Bush-Clinton Years (1989-2008), the question of where the country is headed is an important one.

In writing “future history”, InstantReplay is looking back at the current time from a specified point in the future, say 2032. That means seven presidential terms will have been served, technology will change radically, and 2004 will be at least as distant as 1976 is now.

In the Christian Science Monitor on November 5th, Liz Marlantes wrote an article related to our current discussion:

As dispirited Democrats take stock of across-the-board electoral losses and begin an inevitable bout of soul-searching and recriminations, they might take comfort in reflecting on the position of Republicans in 1976. President Gerald Ford had just lost the White House to Jimmy Carter, and with memories of Watergate still fresh, many Republican officials worried that their party faced permanent marginalization. Some even suggested changing the party's name, believing "Republican" had become a political albatross. "People were writing the obituary for the Republican Party," says Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College and author of "The Losing Parties." Four years later, with President Carter plagued by long gas lines and the Iran hostage crisis, Ronald Reagan swept into office and launched a new period of GOP dominance.

Marlantes goes on to talk about the immediate concerns of the Democratic Party. As a reporter, she naturally tends towards the pedestrian view of current events; while something may be the biggest news ever today, most of it fades quite quickly when tomorrow’s big news arrives. However, not all news is temporary. September 11th, 2001, defined the opening of the new century as no other news day could, and its reverberations will be felt until and beyond the date of our future historian’s writing, November 5, 2032…

Back to the Future

The date is November 5, 2032. This is the first year since 2004 that Election Tuesday was held on the earliest date possible, November 2nd. Beyond that, there are few connections between the two years. When President Marlon Snow - yet another white, Protestant male - takes office on January 20th, a number of former Presidents will be in attendance, including George W. Bush, who made news for the first time in years when former First Lady Laura Bush passed away in March.

The “Bush-Clinton Era”, the subject of this essay, is really a spurious topic given the true contours of history. The accident of a 24-year period with Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Clinton may make for entertaining history, but it is essentially indistinguishable from what has followed.

Certainly, those years – like any quarter century – contained a number of important events, not least of which the breakup of the Soviet Union and the globalization of world trade – and world terrorism. However, the panicky response to terrorism when it first reached American shores is regarded now by most as a second incarnation of McCarthyism. While both “panics” broke up a certain number of truly anti-American organizations, neither addressed the actual issues of its time, and for that reason both fell by the wayside within a decade.

The Cold War, Americans soon realized, was far more an external threat than an internal one. By 1960, Democrats had taken over Washington and correctly (though often ineptly) led the country against the external, Soviet threat. John Kennedy’s successors did not, however, remain long in power. Just as Kennedy won the presidency by inventing a “missile gap”, his Republican opponents moved swiftly to neutralize that advantage, and ultimately took the most credit for winning the Cold War. Really, partisanship over an existential threat is silly (though it continues to this day); the fact is that both parties would have pursued very similar goals in the long run.

The successor to the Cold War was the challenge of globalization at home and abroad. As America adjusted to the interdependency of a super-specialized world economy and true freedom of trade, they confronted the realities of reactionism around the world. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq accomplished less democratization than partnerships, patience, and cooptation did in the Persian Gulf and North Korea, so such ventures soon ceased. While the international scene may have changed, and with it the rhetoric of American politicians, the political landscape within the U.S.A. was unaltered.

America entered the World War II/Cold War Era with a healthy two-party system given to fits, starts, and cycles. Not since the 1850’s had one party been truly ascendant – and in that case the vacuum gave birth to the then-liberal Republican Party. The current two-party system is functioning healthily today, and has been all the way.

Electoral mapping and demographics took off after the 2000 election, and analysts were further convinced of the importance of these studies when the 2004 election ended up closer in the electoral college than in the popular vote, whereas in most elections before and since the electoral college has magnified the popular vote. However, these effects were not a symptom of a changing polity or a new structure of democracy; rather they merely reflected on the controversy of Bush as a leader and the weakness of now-forgotten candidates Gore and Kerry.

Coming back to the present time – 2032 – it is evident now more than ever that the two-party system is here to stay. If we must infer something from American history, it would be that only internal existential crises can destroy or birth new major parties, and no such crisis has occurred since the Civil War.

Arafat On the Brink

Agence France Presse reports that Yasr Arafat is in a coma and in critical condition. He has been in a Paris hospital for over a week, and if he dies it could be the biggest development in the Israel/Palestine situation since Rabin's assassination or the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Update(3pm): Arafat is brain-dead, reports AFP and other sources. He's on life support for the time being, and somebody will have to decide soon when to pull the plug and let him go.

Introducing: Blue Letter Bible

With the election over, InstantReplay will be transitioning to three new themes:

(1) Nothing this weekend, and less in general. The InstantGirlfriend is returning from exile, and frankly she's more interesting than you are.

(2) Projecting the political trajectory. InstantReplay has in the works at least three different versions of how history will look at our period's political realities. Is the Bush-Clinton Era (1989-2008) a continuation of previous themes, a transitional period, or a new paradigm that will continue until altered again by historic events as big as the end of the Cold War and the 9/11 attacks? If the last, what is the new paradigm? Are the "New Left" and the "Neo-Conservatives" here to stay? Will all elections be close? Are the parties fundamentally changing? Can the Democratic Party survive America's demographic shifts? I'll be writing some of these articles, and I would welcome guest articles outlining a possible "future history" of the political dynamics of the Bush-Clinton Era.

(3) A long look at the love of God. I stated my thesis - that the agape love of God cannot be universal if salvation is by election in the Reform sense of the word - in a previous post; I will attempt a Bible study on a grand scale to explore the concept of chesed and agape love in the Old and New Testaments.

A vital tool in this study will be my newfound favorite online Bible (thanks to Tanker Bob and others), Blue Letter Bible. It's got all the plusses of the trusty old Bible Gateway, but with a better interface and lots more bells and whistles. Anybody could have come up with this idea, but the actual execution of it is impressive. For instance, not only can you see II Chronicles 7:14 in twelve different translations, you can see other passages correlated to key phrases, the words and meanings of the original Hebrew (as well as the Septuagint), Matthew Henry's commentary on the passage (or any of a dozen others), or a topical text list on any of the themes in the verse, such as Prayer, Public.

Think of it as a candy store for upstart theologians.

First Symptoms of Normalcy

InstantReplay was not the only place confident of a Bush victory last night. The DOW jumped about 150 points at the opening bell, and has remained there, not budging even at Kerry's concession news. The uncertainty yesterday afternoon caused a 100-point selloff in the closing hours, but the uncertainty was apparently over by this morning, and the market corrected back up.

Kerry Concedes

A few minutes ago, John Forbes Kerry telephoned George Walker Bush to congratulate him on winning the presidency. The announcement will be made publically at 1:00pm.

With everything moving against him, Kerry had little choice. Now he has the unenviable task of returning to a Senate controlled by a larger, more conservative Republican majority.

On another note, I lost some respect for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who appeared on CBS this morning saying how he'll miss his "friend" Tom Daschle, and how much respect he has for the ousted Minority Leader. It's one thing to campaign actively against another Senator - even though that was an unprecedented show of partisanship. It's another thing to stand there holding a bloody knife and talking about what a great friend he was. I would have lost respect for anchor Dan Rather as well if I had still retained any: Rather didn't even question Frist about campaigning against Daschle; he let it go as if he were interviewing the winner of a cheese-tasting competition. Journalistic integrity anyone?

Four More Years

A Democrat commented to me a few minutes ago on the silver lining of Bush winning the 2004 election. "At least we don't have to worry about him running again," she said. America's liberals are experiencing Bush-bashing fatigue. Personally, I've shown symptoms of listening-to-incessant-Bush-bashing fatigue. I'm hoping four more years of Bush doesn't mean four more years of priggish, prickish comments about the President.

I called the election with confidence in Bush's favor at 9:30pm as returns showed him taking a lead in Florida and holding even in the Midwest and New Hampshire. Now I'm more confident than ever, and Bush's motorcade, according to NBC is preparing the short drive from the White House to the Ronald Reagan Building for the victory party.

Ohio has been the nailbiter, but the bottom line is that Kerry needs to sweep almost all the undecideds to win, while 20 electoral votes will be enough for Bush, and Ohio is looking redder by the minute (As of now, ABC has called it in Bush's favor but CBS is holding off).

Senate Races

Drudge (the only source who is divulging anything) reports that John Thune is polling ahead of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota. Other Senate races: "Thune +4, Castor +3, Burr +6, Bunning +6, Coburn +6, Demint +4, Salazar +4".

Exit Pollapalooza

Update-2:55pm - Drudge has the first exit polls out, showing good results for Senator Kerry.

	AZ	CO	LA	MI	WI	PA	OH	FL	MI	NM	MN	WI	IA	NH
Kerry:	45	48	42	51	52	60	52	51	51	50	58	52	49	57
Bush:	55	51	57	48	48	40	48	48	47	48	40	43	49	41

So far so good for Kerry, but the fat lady hasn't even entered the building.

The Amish (and other Lancaster County residents) are voting heavily for Bush, which is expected, but are voting early and in massive numbers as well.

Meanwhile, bad news for the networks in Ohio: they've been banned from exit-polling within 100 feet of a voting location. Like all good Americans, they sued today. Good news, however, for Bush: it's raining steadily in Ohio and a few other states, which generally works in an incumbant's favor and, I would guess, in a Republican's favor, since urbanites are more likely to vote Kerry and are less likely to be have cars or be able to park them at their polling place.

Early this morning, poll monitors found 2,000 pre-planted ballots before polls opened in downtown Philadelphia, according to Drudge.

Breaking With Tradition

After a nineteen-hour Marathon Monday, Bush voted this morning in Crawford, Texas, before breaking traditions by making a campaign stop in Columbus, Ohio. Ostensibly to thank his volunteers, the real reason - the good reason - was to snag TV time on a repetitive yet well-watched news day, and possibly get a few more of his Ohio supporters out to the polls.

As predicted by InstantReplay, John Kerry one-upped the president by leading get-out-the-vote drives in both Milwaukee and Toledo. Obviously, a candidate can't be everywhere on Tuesday, but I don't think we're far away from the reality of each candidate working like a marathoner from 6am EST to 8pm PST. And heck, with Hawaii in play, a candidate could make a surprise appearance there if he could make it there from Oregon/Nevada in time!

All is fair in love, war, and politics.

Bush Takes Early Lead

As expected, Bush took an early lead in Hart's Location and Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, leading 34-22, with Nader taking 1 vote. Millions more lined up this morning to vote, including most of my office. I was impressed at my own polling place with the patience displayed by normally self-centered and hurrying suburbanites.

I knew this would happen

Traditionally, candidates do not campaign actively on Election Tuesday; they stay esconced in headquarters, staying out of the way to let voters - and hyperactive partisans - do their work.

However, it was also once traditional that candidates would not campaing for themselves at all. That fell apart in the mid-1800's.

Bush will be the first to break with tradition by making "at least one" campaign stop tomorrow. Unless, of course, Kerry changes his plans and beats the president to it.

I don't have any problems with campaigning on Election Tuesday - it makes sense, since the networks will want to cover something other than now-untrusted exit polls. Putting your candidate's face on TV will amount to free, effective advertizing, and I'll be surprised if Kerry doesn't switch up his agenda to make an appearance or two, even if he stays close to home to do so.

Get Out the Vote?

As this election goes down to the wire, local and national media outlets - even in 'safe' states like Virginia - are buzzing about how high turnout will be. How high? Maybe as high as 60% of eligible voters!

Over the years, many have decried the lack of interest in American elections and proposed ways to solve it. When 50% is considered the benchmark for turnout in an average race (40% during midterms), there's obviously a huge number of non-voters. America isn't the only country to struggle with this question: Switzerland has the most direct democracy, the most chances to vote, and the lowest turnout in Europe (typically 50%). Australia fines all who fail to vote. Bolivia issues identity cards at the polling places without which you may not buy gas, eggs, or milk for three weeks after the election. Syria votes for you if you don't show up.

Should America pursue such measures? There's certainly an argument for any given state to do so; that would guarantee more attention during an election and more ad dollars, since there would be a massive number of new, undecided voters.

On the other side of the debate, however, are those realists who ask the question, "Do we really want our leaders picked by people so uninformed and uninvolved that the don't vote?" Point taken. But there are still a lot of unheard voices of folks who do care - but don't think their vote counts.

To solve this problem, InstantReplay has come up with a compromise: Whining Licenses. At each polling place, issue every voter a standard Whining License. For the next four years, anyone whining about the government can be challenged to show their License. If they don't have one, they're not allowed to whine. At midterm elections, it would be stamped with an update, renewing your right to Congressional Whining for two more years. This wouldn't affect those who truly don't care or don't know. If they don't know enough to vote, they probably won't find out about the Whining Licenses.

As a test case, InstantReplay will be issuing Virtual Whining Licenses to all regular readers. If you vote tomorrow, shoot me an email telling me the location of your polling place. I'll issue Whining Licenses valid on InstantReplay only; anyone who reads this post but fails to vote is not eligible to post comments about the government until November, 2008.

The Fifth Column

Thanks to Watchblog for highlighting this Zogby text-message poll. One of the growing concerns in this day of increasing communications modes is whether the traditional home-phone polling will continue to give accurate results. A small but growing group are voters like myself: young cell-phone users with no home phone. There's no way a pollster for a normal tracking poll could reach me.

Zogby worked with Rock the Vote to poll 18 to 29-year-olds who rely "primarily if not solely" on their cell phones. The results showed an almost identical pattern compared to traditional polls of the same age group: Kerry led 55% to 40%. Of course, it's an unscientific, self-selective poll, since it's easier to delete a text message than respond. I suspect that Bush does better among politically unengaged voters than does Kerry, and I also suspect that more of these cell-phone-only voters are concentrated in non-swing Blue States, where technology and mobility are key.

This poll has to be reassuring to the Bush campaign, despite the 15 point spread against him. In 1948, phone-less voters confounded the confident pollsters by voting overwhelmingly for Truman and handing him a landslide win where all expected him to lose big. The fact that phone-less (in 1948) and cell-phone-only (in 2004 and beyond) voters are not randomly selected from among the population means that polls can be significantly wrong in a close election. The indication that cell-phone-onlies mirror the regular population is good for Bush.

Relatedly, one mistake made by the media (and hence by voters) is that polls were accurate throughout the campaign. It is of course in the media's interest to lend credence to the polls since they both administer and report them. Thus, a result of a landslide for either candidate will be seen as an anomoly, or a result of better get-out-the-vote drives. This may be true, but it is also possible that the polls failed to account for structural changes in communications or society. This has been seen recently in referenda on gay marriage. People are (wrongly) ashamed of their opposition to gay marriage, and will lie to a pollster about how they intend to vote. Then, on election day, they vote their gut and the gay lobby is confounded by a ballot-count that does not mirror the polls.

So on November 3rd when the media tells you how shocked they were at the result, don't be taken in. They're only shocked because they forgot that the ballot-box, not the telephone, is the true measure of American democracy.