Month: January 2008

This Is Not That Rough A Democratic Primary

by dday

In 1992, Bill Clinton started running negative ads against Paul Tsongas and Bob Kerrey in New Hampshire. The Republicans this year have been running negative ads since Iowa. Heck, even in 2004 Gephardt and Dean went nuclear on each other early. The history of Presidential primaries is not a game of patty-cake.

At one New York City debate late in the 1984 race, Walter Mondale and Gary Hart battered each other so relentlessly that Jesse Jackson almost needed to physically separate them. In an especially heated 1992 encounter, Bill Clinton appeared ready to lean over and deck Jerry Brown.

The nominating system, by its nature, encourages such ferocity. Because the leading contenders usually differ only modestly on issues, they are compelled to exaggerate their differences and to magnify any blemish they find in their opponent’s character or career.

Yet the only negative ads in the Democratic primary so far ran for a day until both sides yanked them. By historical standards, this has been an unfailingly nice primary, and only recently have tempers flared. There have been some whispers from surrogates, some opposition research dropped into the papers, and some out-of-character behavior from a former President, but in general, that’s politics, and it’s not being played at a particularly cutthroat level. And Barack Obama seems to understand that this is a slap-fight compared to what we’ll see in the fall from the Republicans.

At a morning press conference, though, Obama indicated that the race wasn’t as nasty as some may think, “I don’t feel like the candidates are being blooded up,” but then added on, “This is good practice for me, so ya know when I take on those Republicans I’ll be accustomed to it.”

The media is trying to push a narrative that this is the nastiest Democratic primary in history, and that it’s causing an irreparable rift within the party that will never be patched up. They love the conflict and they’re writing breathless articles about how the Clintons are “double-teaming” Obama and how everybody hates each other and the fate of the Democratic Party hangs in the balance.

I just don’t buy it. The only thing nasty about this primary is the coverage of it, which has over-hyped every back-and-forth charge, and in particular over-hyped this so-called “rift.” It’s like the media heads into every campaign season as a tabula rasa, without the memory of any past performance in other primaries.

I know people get very emotional and the blogosphere reflects this emotion, but don’t get suckered. Nobody’s ruining the Democratic Party here. In my experience observing a caucus last week in Nevada, everyone was happy to vote for their candidate, and the high turnout was certainly being driven by a desire to return the White House to the Democrats. This idea of a rift is a game being played by the traditional media, who wants a storyline.

Update: I know it’s very rude to intrude on D-Day’s post, but I just have to add that the most sickening aspect of this media stoked “rift” is the fact that the kewl kidz are gleefully exploiting both the race and the gender angles for all they are worth. It’s a neat little storyline thatprovides a forum for a group of comfortable elites to spend hours deriding Democrats (and the Democratic base) as silly and trivial bickerers who can’t be trusted.

Meanwhile, have you heard about this rift? It sure seems like an important story to me:

According to American Conservative Union chairman David Keene, John McCain is not what you’d call a conservative’s conservative.

“There’s this personal animosity he has towards people over issues,” said Keene, who has endorsed Mitt Romney. “Most conservatives see that he would like to remake the party without them.”

Despite a voting record that suggests he should be in conservatives’ good graces – he has an 82.3 percent lifetime rating from Keene’s ACU – McCain has strident critics within the conservative establishment. Among them are Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Former Sen. Rick Santorum (who has vowed to support any Republican but McCain), and a host of conservative talk radio hosts led by Rush Limbaugh, who has suggested a McCain nomination would “destroy the Republican Party.”

That’s a substantial and important rift. You’d think we’d be hearing more about it considering that the Republicans have been dominating politics for the past 25 years.

But I guess it’s not sexy. — digby

Update II from digby:

Talk about a rift:

With candidate gone, former aide Darrel Ng helps launch BoycottChuckNorris.com to advocate shunning Norris-endorsed products, those who advertise on “Walker, Texas Ranger.” Read release here.

Citing Chuck Norris’s strong support for a candidate who does not believe in evolution and who has called for the isolation of AIDS patients, www.BoycottChuckNorris.com launched today to organize a boycott of products that Chuck Norris endorses or those who advertise on the television show in which he starred, Walker, Texas Ranger

My goodness, it seems to me there was a time not too long ago when the press would have insisted that was being disrespectful of Real American Christians.

They Are One Entity

by digby

You all remember Grover Norquist’s Reagan Legacy Project? Well, here’s the Bush Legacy Project, brought to you by some smart progressives who have learned that if you don’t define it, they will.

Here’s one of their actions:

For seven years, President Bush’s allies in Congress helped push forward his failed Conservative agenda. This week, Americans United for Change began delivering “I’m a Bush Republican” buttons to all of the Republicans in the House and Senate today in advance of Bush’s Final State of the Union Address on Monday with the message: “your votes helped build his legacy; you should show your support for him by proudly declaring that you’re a Bush Republican.” On Monday, as cameras scan the House Chamber during the State of the Union Address, we’ll see how many Republicans – those who have voted for Bush’s policies on Iraq, the economy, energy and health care – are willing to put their lapels where there votes have been and wear a button with this simple message: “I’m a Bush Republican.”

I love these guys. This is exactly what needs to be done. The Republicans are calling up St. Ronnie every five minutes like they’re running as his successor. But I’m afraid he hasn’t been in office for twenty years. They are George W Bush’s successors and they backed every crackpot scheme he came up with enthusiastically and without reservation.

Indeed, they worshipped him. They called him Winston Churchill. They were measuring him for a spot on Mt Rushmore for crying out loud, and they weren’t subtle about it:

That was a little bit premature: (via Think Progress)

The Republicans can run, but they can’t hide from their complicity in this, especially the presidential candidates who are still quaking in their boots for fear of offending the Bush cultists who continue to defend that shameful record. Bush is their albatross — they made him, now they have to take responsibility for him. If you listen to their rhetoric on the trail it’s quite clear that they are ready to do it all over again.

* And when the Republicans cry, as they will, that “George W. Bush isn’t running,” the Democratic candidate should reply, “well, you’d never know it by listening to your speeches or reading your platform.”

Update: Oh fergawdsake. He’s still doing it:

Fox News reporter Bret Baier “was granted unprecedented access by George W. Bush” to put together a one hour documentary that reflects back on his presidency. The documentary will air this Sunday night. Baier previewed his documentary — “George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish” — on Fox News this afternoon. He said that what surprised him from the interview was the President’s repeated efforts to link himself to Abraham Lincoln:

We talked a lot about President Lincoln. And there’s going to be a lot of people out there who watch this hour and say, is he trying to equate himself with Lincoln? I tell you what — he thinks about Lincoln and the tough times that he had during the Civil War. 600,000 dead. The country essentially hated him when he was leaving office. And the President reflects on that. This is a President who is really reflecting on his place in history.

Update: A number of readers have written in to point out how odd it is that Bush characterizes Lincoln as being hated when he was “leaving office,” as if he doesn’t know that Lincoln had actually just been reelected in a landslide, was despised only by those in the defeated south and was well … shot.

I t makes you wonder if Bush even knows the sixth grade level history of Lincoln’s term. Of course, he does have a degree in history from Yale so it’s a little bit hard to believe that, but it’s been a long time and maybe he forgot.

As I wrote to one of the readers, I suspect that this whole Lincoln thing is something some sycophant told him in passing and he’s adopted it as his coping mechanism: “don’t worry Mr President, Lincoln was despised when he left office and he’s now known as America’s greatest president. You will be too!”

As poppy would say, “nah guh happen.”

.

Still Crazy After All These Years

by digby

If there is even one person out there who has developed doubts that any Democrat would be better than any Republican in the Oval Office, this should dispel them.

.

Speaking Of Radical Centrists

by digby

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York City intensified his attacks on the political leadership here on Wednesday, pointing to what he called the government’s failure to fix immigration policy and other problems of immediate concern to the nation.

In a speech before a group of his fellow mayors, Mr. Bloomberg described Washington politicians as shortsighted and said their priorities often reflected crass political calculations rather than sound policy judgments.

“We all know that spending decisions in Washington are driven by whatever will attract votes and campaign cash,” he said in criticizing the government for running up enormous budget deficits over the last few years.

Imagine that. Attracting votes and campaign cash. How tacky. Yes, what we clearly need is benevolent billionaire dictators who ignore the voters and care about nothing but their own interests.

I know that is the fondest dream of the DC establishment but until we can find such paragons to run for office I’m afraid we are going to have to continue to rely on the unpleasantness of crass democratic politics as practiced on planet earth.

This Unity 08 argument is particularly laughable considering what the Republicans are pulling on this FISA legislation this week. I’d love to see Old Mike sanctimoniously lecture people who think torture is a reasonable policy.

.

Bad Writing

by digby

I would like to take this opportunity to correct a badly worded phrase in my post about Rick Perlstein earlier, which has been misunderstood due to my own bad writing:

This back and forth and give and take, between the polarities of our American philosophy — freedom and equality, opportunity and security, tradition and progress— is America. We are, as a people, both conservative and liberal.

What I meant to write was this:

This back and forth and give and take, between the inherent tensions in our American philosophy of freedom and equality, opportunity and security, tradition and progress is America. We are as a people, both liberal and conservative, with those values often being used in opposition to one another.

It was late, I was tired. mea culpa.

.

Media Matters notes this conversation from this morning, which, for obvious reasons, I can relate to:

BRZEZINSKI: Well, [Mike] Barnicle and then Craig, we want you to chime in. Here’s Bill Clinton on the campaign trail yesterday talking about whether or not his wife is a polarizing figure, and the word “race” does come up as well. Take a listen. CLINTON : The only people that she’s a polarizing figure around are people that don’t know her. I mean, the reason I think she’s the most electable Democrat has nothing to do with race or gender. It is that they have systematically polarized the country, the right-wing Republicafaction has. They first took over the Republican Party. And then they performed reverse plastic surgery on all the Democrats, right? Starting with President Carter in 1980 — really, starting in the late ’70s. And it worked for them every single time, except with me. BRZEZINSKI: Wow. SCARBOROUGH: You know the thing is — and Craig Crawford, race aside, it’s amazing how divisive he is compared to Barack Obama, who asks Republicans and independents to vote for him. And here’s Bill Clinton fighting the right-wing Republicans. It’s just like 1998 all over again, isn’t it? CRAWFORD: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney, he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we’ve gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, “Well, where’s the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?” you’re accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton — if the town drunk in Columbia came out and said, “Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts,” the media would say, “Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can’t trust him.” I really think it’s a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger.

I can relate to Crawford’s feelings on this, obviously, since I’ve made the same complaint myself.

Radical Centrists

by dday

Uh-oh. Anyone who thinks that a positive agenda for the nation will simply be realized by the election of a Democratic President or even substantial gains to the majority in Congress needs to read this report by Ezra Klein from a health care conference today:

Mark Warner addressed the luncheon. Warner is a talented speaker, and fluent on health care […] On the actual topic of reform, Warner promises, if he’s elected, to find 9 or 10 other moderate Senators and form a “radical centrists” caucus. On the one hand, that sort of middle-of-the-road legislative work is important. On the other, you have to be clear about what you’re trying to win. The deal needs to be in service of a policy. So hearing Warner start a compromise caucus before he’s got something to fight for — as compared to Ron Wyden, who’s pulling in bipartisan sponsors around concrete legislation — strikes me as a bit of a cart-before-the-horse problem.

As Klein notes, in this case, “centrism” is not being modeled around a particular policy or an issue but as a positive good in and of itself, making a virtue of being in the middle of whatever the two parties decide, and apparently not just on health care but on everything. This might cause David Broder to throw his Wheaties in the air in great joy, but it’s just death for any kind of substantive progressive agenda. It’s a roadblock. Our movement won’t have to only fight off hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads from a conservative movement that will not give up in subverting progress, but from these moderate Democrats that are supposed to represent the winning margin for that progress.

However, there’s a very bleak bit of daylight here. In his speech, Warner talked about how every country in the world gets the benefit of drug company R&D, while we pay for it, because we keep any kind of competition and bargaining out of the purchase of prescription drugs. Similiarly, prospective recruit for the “radical centrist” caucus Ken Salazar said at the same conference that “health care is a fundamental right.”

This fetishism for moderation is disturbing, but it seems that, much like Rick Perlstein noted that conservatism and liberalism are not random governing philosophies but actual expressions of human nature, “centrism” also springs from some deep-seated urge to split the difference and make oneself look or feel somehow superior or above political gamesmanship in the process. So the goal for the progressive movement must be to shift the political center and force those predisposed to the badges of centrism and bipartisanship to move to the left to save their political skins. And indeed, we’re doing some good work, albeit limited, on that score.

Digby has mentioned Eric Boehlert’s excellent piece about the blogswarm that caught Tweety Matthews napping and forced him to apologize for his rampant sexism. This is not something the progressive movement would have been in the position to demand just a few years ago. And I would argue that the influence is far more acute with respect to the Republican Presidential nomination. Progressives have done an excellent job of very sharply defining all of the major candidates in a very negative fashion, to the extent that traditional media is using the exact same frames. I saw a few minutes of CNN with some talking heads discussing Fred Thompson’s withdrawal from the race (by the way, the guy’s timing is so bad, he apparently won the Louisiana caucus after he dropped out). Every talking head was talking about Thompson’s laziness, his lack of campaigning, his aw-shucks dimness, in increasingly vicious ways. Here’s a transcript.

BLITZER: It wasn’t exactly a shocker today, Jack, that Fred Thompson announced he’s dropping out of this race. But let’s take a look at the political fallout.

Among the Republicans, who gains, who loses?

CAFFERTY: Well, if he hadn’t announced it, I’m not sure anybody would have noticed.

(LAUGHTER)

CAFFERTY: I mean I — you know, it’s like he hasn’t — he’s only been here what — you know, he wasn’t that interested in campaigning. I think he would have liked it if somebody would have said you can be president. But he didn’t want to work to get the job. And I’m not sure it means a heck of a lot for anybody. Somebody said that he might be trying to position himself to be vice president. He’ll deny that.

BORGER: …So watch for Mitt Romney, who is also running as a social conservative, to go after those six or seven Thompson voters that are out there.

(LAUGHTER)

BORGER: And he’ll try — he’ll try and get them.

TOOBIN: You know, Wolf, you have to go all the way back to Rudolph Giuliani to find a campaign that has been singularly as unsuccessful as Fred Thompson’s has been.

(LAUGHTER)

BORGER: That far back?

TOOBIN: You know, I just don’t think it will have any impact at all, his departure…

BLITZER: Well, it could have a…

TOOBIN: …just as his arrival didn’t.

BORGER: You know…

BLITZER: It could have an impact in new episodes of “Law and Order,” though.

BORGER: It could. It could. But, you know, this was such an interesting candidacy. It was created by the Republican establishment in Washington, who felt that they needed a new horse. They needed someone else. So they created this. They took a guy who was television. They said let’s turn him into a presidential candidate. He will clearly appeal to the American public. And it totally flopped […]

TOOBIN: That was the ultimate problem.

CAFFERTY: Take a look at all the other ideas the Republican establishment in Washington has had for the last seven years.

(LAUGHTER)

CAFFERTY: It’s no surprise to me the Fred Thompson thing didn’t go anywhere.

BLITZER: I can’t tell you how many people in that Republican establishment — especially here in Washington, the beltway, you know, the Republican lobbyists…

BORGER: Right.

BLITZER: …the so-called elite, when they were even thinking of getting him in, they said this is the new Ronald Reagan. He’s an actor.

CAFFERTY: Yes.

BLITZER: He’s media-genic. He’s powerful. And he’s really going to turn things around.

(CROSSTALK) CAFFERTY: If you want to look at the definition of irrelevant, look up the Republican establishment in Washington, D.C.

BORGER: Right.

CAFFERTY: That’s irrelevant.

(LAUGHTER)

TOOBIN: Fred Thompson definitely was the tallest candidate.

BORGER: Right.

(LAUGHTER)

BORGER: But, you know, it’s so…

CAFFERTY: And the baldest.

BORGER: …it’s so arrogant, though, you know, to think that you can be anointed in Washington and you’re pretty good on television and you look pretty good and you — and you have great name recognition because you’re in “Law and Order,” and, gee, I can then become president.

And I think they talked him into it. And I think they said to him, you know, you don’t have to work that hard.

(LAUGHTER)

BORGER: You can actually just get this job, get in late, let the public take a look at you. You’re different. You’re going to win. It didn’t work out that way.

CAFFERTY: He bought that part about not having to work very hard. He liked that part.

(LAUGHTER)

CAFFERTY: You can sit in the trailer until it’s time for your close-up, Fred.

(LAUGHTER)

It has the usual Village cattiness, but these are themes that progressives pushed from the moment Thompson entered the race. He’s lazy, he’s an actor who wants to play the role of the President, he was pushed upon people by the establishment. And this is true across the line: Romney’s an insincere flip-flopper, Rudy’s a homicidal maniac, Huckabee’s a Jesus freak, McCain wants to bomb the whole world (this narrative took hold until McCain dropped off the map and we stopped pressuring him), etc.

Now, we’re aided by a really terrible slate of candidates. But it’s clear that progressives have shot these narratives into the media bloodstream. Initially, Thompson was the guy you could smell the Aqua Velva on, and Romney was a guy who has shoulders on which you can land a 747. I really think the movement is maturing and deserves a lot of credit.

However, these are media narratives. We have not been able to make the same arguments in terms of policy. And that’s the danger of this “radical centrist” coalition. The need is to force them into accepting ideas, in the case of health care, like the safe reimportation of drugs from Canada, guaranteed issue from the insurance companies, a public option competing with insurers, etc., as reasonable, moderate ideas, so that the debate shifts leftward. Otherwise, we’re going to get a fake reform that rewards the insurance companies by giving them a forced market, without any of the regulation or cost controls that will actually help people get affordable coverage. And on and on down the line.

It’s important to highlight what Mark Warner is telegraphing here. This is what we’ll be up against in the future, and it’s why the office of the President is arguably less important than the health and maturity of the progressive movement to leverage change.

.

Good Faith

by dday

It doesn’t look like any of the amendments to the FISA bill have the votes to pass, even on a majority vote (but call your Senators anyway!). The only one that appears to have a chance of passage is Dianne Feinstein’s “compromise” amendment, which would allow the FISA court to do judicial review to see if the phone companies should be granted amnesty for lawbreaking. Upon closer inspection, this would be a tragic mistake.

It’s bad enough that she wants a secret court, which average Americans like you and I don’t have the right to access, to determine whether our basic legal rights and privacy protections are valid. What’s worse is the underlying reasoning she is using. Feinstein believes that all the telecoms and the Bush administration have to show the FISA court would be that they acted in “good faith” – and voila, the telecoms are immune […]

Although the first test asks whether the telecoms’ assistance to the NSA “met the legal requirements,” under Feinstein’s amendment immunity could be granted if it passes the second test – “good faith” – even if the telecom in question did not pass the first test. As the senator explains (italics mine):

“If the FISA Court determines that the company did not provide assistance, or that the assistance provided met the legal requirements or was reasonable and in good faith, the immunity provision would apply.”

So as long as the stupid ol’ phone companies, who as you know don’t have access to lawyers or a copy of the Bill of Rights, apparently, were told that they were operating in “good faith” by the federal government, they’d be off the hook. And of course, that means that the government itself is off the hook, since the telecom lawsuits are really the only legitimate way to determine the breadth of the spying. A “good faith” alibi is no different than saying “I was just following orders.” It should not meet the requirement of the American system of justice.

Feinstein’s amendment sets a very, very bad precedent. It would allow lawbreaking by telecom companies merely because they followed a presidential order, regardless of whether the order was lawful. It denies Americans their fundamental legal rights to defend their rights in a public court. And it potentially would give Bush himself immunity, not just the telecoms.

Call your Senator and tell them that unless they advocate anarchy, they need to report out a bill that does not give immunity willy-nilly to any organization that is told by the executive branch to break the law. The numbers are here.

UPDATE: This is not good news. The White House has relented and allowed any House Intelligence or Judiciary committee member to view the warrantless wiretapping documents including the legal underpinning for the President’s program. This was seen as a prerequisite by those House committees to allowing amnesty to go forward. They’re still not giving most House members or most Senators access to those documents. So it seems that the bargain is in the midst of being made. As long as these House committees get to see how the President broke the law, they’ll give him amnesty for him and his telecom buddies for doing so.

UPDATE II: MoveOn would like you to make a call to our Presidential candidates and tell them they are needed back in Washington to lead.

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both said they oppose this immunity bill4, but now is a time we need real leadership. Senators Obama and Clinton have enormous influence with Democrats right now—if they helped lead a filibuster against this bill, other Senators would take notice and the public would see Democrats showing principle and backbone.

Can you call Senator Barack Obama today? (Others will call Clinton.) Tell him we need his leadership to help block immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law. Here’s the number to call: (866) 675-2008.

UPDATE III: The attempt to substitute the non-amnesty Judiciary bill for the amnesty-laden Intelligence bill failed, 60-34.

.

Telcom Buddy System

by digby

They’re debating FISA on C-SPAN right now. Kit Bond, one of the biggest neanderthals in the Senate, is telling America that they should trust the intelligence committee to protect their rights. No need for that pesky constitution.

Russ Feingold was interviewed about the situation this morning:

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday morning, Sen. Russ Feingold, who opposes granting immunity to those companies, expressed disappointment that his party’s leader, Sen. Harry Reid, was not doing more to help strike the provision from a newly considered version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“Of course I have great respect for the Majority Leader,” said Feingold. “He is a good friend of mine. But I really do disagree with his way of proceeding.”

At issue is the likely passage of a version of FISA that contains retroactive immunity over one that doesn’t. Reid has said he supports the former, but legislatively, the path has been paved for the passage of the latter. In addition, there is debate over an amendment offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, to strip immunity from any FISA bill. If that fails — and it seems likely — Dodd has threatened to filibuster the whole bill. On Wednesday, Reid was interpreted as saying any such filibuster will be the standing and talking variety as opposed to an agreed-upon 60-vote minimum threshold. Feingold, who supports Dodd’s stance, took slight issue with that approach.

“We should have a normal process were this is debated based on a majority vote in the senate,” said the Wisconsin Democrat. “That’s the way it should have been done and I regret that it’s not being done that way. Of course, I support Senator Dodd. He and I were principally involved in making sure this didn’t get jammed through before the holidays and I will be supporting him again. But this decision does make it harder.”

Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday morning before the debate, Reid addressed these concerns. He noted that he himself supported the Judiciary Committee version of the FISA bill, which would not give telecom companies a free ride from potential lawsuits. That measure, however, is likely to be tabled by Republicans and many Democrats. And in that case, the Majority Leader argued, the Senate would consider the Intelligence Committee version, which grants immunity. Senators who objected to any amendment — such as the one to be offered by Dodd — would have to stand and argue for as long as they could.

That about says it all. They’re scheduled to vote on the good bill, that doesn’t include retroactive immunity, at 2 pm.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid is getting some attentionon this in his hometown paper:

Sen. Harry Reid angered liberals in his party last month as he sought to shield telecom companies from liability for their role in the Bush administration’s domestic spying program.

As the Senate debates the surveillance issue this week, the criticism of Reid shows that his role is putting him at odds with his party’s base.

Not that such things will matter, of course, since everyone — the Democrats, the Republicans and media — all agree that the base of the Democratic party is a bunch of losers who should be treated like dirt whenever possible. Reid will, I’m sure, be cheered by all the chatterers for being a wise and sage leader for not being held captive by the unhinged left.

If any of you crazed DFH’s feel like doing something to irritate your betters today, here’s a new action tool from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It’s fun for the whole family.

.

Da Man

by digby

Hey, here’s a treat to read on a cold winter’s night: a profile of our brilliant pal Rick Perlstein in The Chicago Reader:

In Before the Storm, the 2001 history that made his reputation, Rick Perlstein put his readers inside the skin of a pimply college freshman cast adrift on a sprawling concrete campus in the 1960s. “Wearied from his first soul-crushing run-in with Big Bureaucracy,” the imagined student is buying his required texts in the campus bookstore when he happens on a slim book with big type. He flips it open and “standing, reads fourteen short pages inviting him to join an idealistic struggle to defend the individual against the encroachments of the mass.”

And the kid is hooked. “Freedom, autonomy, authenticity: he has rarely read a writer who speaks so clearly to the things he worries about, who was so cavalier about authority, so idealistic.”

This mesmerizing book isn’t by Che Guevara or Abbie Hoffman. It’s Barry Goldwater’s ghostwritten The Conscience of a Conservative.

The story Perlstein began to tell in Before the Storm, and will continue telling in May with its sequel, Nixonland, isn’t what you might expect. It’s not the story of how hippies and radicals turned America upside down, because they didn’t. Perlstein is telling the story of the other major grassroots movement of the 1960s, the one that grew up and elected 20 years’ worth of presidents. Holden Caulfield, meet George W. Bush.

Do read the whole thing because Rick is the most astute observer of the right wing I’ve ever come across. As you all know, Rick invited me to write on his blog The Big Con a few months back at Campaign For America’s Future, and it’s been great fun. He talks about the blog in the interview:

“My fantasy for the blog,” he says, “was that readers would send posts to Aunt Millie—that it would be a way to get people talking. But people aren’t forwarding them to conservative relatives and friends. They aren’t talking to them.” Perlstein, on the other hand, is. “I have a group of four very different conservatives I’ve been e-mailing back and forth [as a group] since 2003. I can’t imagine living my life, intellectually and politically, without keeping these lines of communication open to people I disagree with.”

And he doesn’t just disagree with them; he appreciates that “people genuinely believe that good order has to be protected from people with scary values.” By his reckoning even Watergate, the ultimate dirty trick, sprang from a genuine fear that if George McGovern were elected president it would spell disaster for the country. No doubt Perlstein would’ve thought the same thing of Nixon’s reelection that year, if he’d been 30 and not 3, but he can still recognize himself in the ideological mirror. He says, “If I were an academic, I’d be talking about ‘incommensurate apocalypses.’”

The point is, if you can’t feel what they feel, then you can’t take them seriously as political opponents. You see only the flimsy intellectual foundations and miss the motivating power of strategically harnessed resentment. From Adlai Stevenson to John Kerry, high-minded liberals have acted as if they were blind to the root feelings that feed the followers of politicians like Nixon and Bush. Instead, they alternate between expecting a fair fight on the issues (and getting swiftboated instead) and imagining that once people realize what a bad person Nixon or Bush is, the people will turn against him.

Conservatism isn’t just a temporary delusion or a wacky distraction. In Perlstein’s view, it’s a deep-seated expression of human nature. He recalls the Gilbert and Sullivan song from Iolanthe about two kinds of babies: “I often think it’s comical / How nature always does contrive / That every boy and every gal / That’s born into the world alive / Is either a little Liberal / Or else a little Conservative.” His point: “We’re not going to eliminate them. The best we can do is to win our 51 percent. What’s fascinating is that we share this country together.

He’s right about this. Conservatism is not an aberration. It is a facet of human nature and a permanent fixture in American life. At the moment they have a successful political movement that first grew out of a genuine grassroots uprising and was soon funded by the aristocrats (who are always conservatives) to help them protect their interests.

We will not eliminate conservatism or even transcend it. But we might be able to win a governing majority for a while and do some good. This back and forth and give and take, between the polarities of our American philosophy — freedom and equality, opportunity and security, tradition and progress— is America. We are, as a people, both conservative and liberal.

The conservative movement is adept at advancing its agenda from the minority and keeping the movement alive when they are out of power. But they have a problem:

Perlstein and other bloggers have been making the case that conservatism is a failure—not because of incompetence or cronyism but because it is not and cannot be a governing philosophy.

Progressivism, on the other hand, is a governing philosophy. The key for us is to create a movement that pushes its political party to govern in both principled and effective fashion when it holds power and knows how to advance its agenda when it’s out. It can be done. And progress most certainly can be made, in spite of conservatives’ best efforts to thwart it.

Read the whole interview. His book is coming out soon and it’s going to knock your socks off.

.