On the outskirts
of town — you know the kind of place
where someone’s gathered the bones
of houses, pipes and such — Johnson’s
Scrapyard, or Pulaski’s Salvage, some place like that
with some name like that — all the refrigerators
with their doors off like burial vaults
skewed crazy on end, and the doors
in a separate pile, you know the kind of place
where it looks like a bomb went off
but that’s not what happened, just the normal
tear it up and you know, cart it somewhere
where we don’t have to see it every day
kind of place, full of old corrugated iron
and the odd bike sticking up
out of the rusty creek that’s always on the border,
maybe a fence with barbed wire, some frontier
you recognize somehow, kind of place
you loved as a kid but now you tell your own kids
to stay away, that kind of obsolete — yes,
that kind of place where a car you couldn’t
put back on the road legally gets reused
to move stuff, a Buick with its back
torn open like a pickup truck, seats used
by the little shack where the attendant sits
and waits for something, that kind of man
with greasy Dickies and a name tag, sitting smoking
Mustang cigarettes, yes, he goes home at night
to kids too, maybe kids your own kids
know but don’t talk to much, that kind of place,
you know the kind of place I mean?  Well,
that’s home too, no matter what you say,
because your lawn
and garden and garage with its stainless concrete floor,
all that oil you studiously avoid, all the things you replace,
all that stuff has to go somewhere and that’s home too,
no matter how far out of town you put it,
no matter how hard you try to forget it’s there,
that kind of place you were told to avoid,
it’s dangerous out there, someone
could get hurt.  Yeah,
that’s home too.  Don’t pretend
you don’t know, or that it’s not true.
Ask your kids sometimes
where they ride their bikes
when they’re gone a long time.
They’ll probably lie,
but you’ll know.

Monday was an extraordinary day for Northern Ireland politics.  Firstly, there was the opinion poll, reported in the Belfast Telegraph showing the Martin McGuinness was Northern Ireland’s most popular politician.

Later, we had the announcement, confirmed today, that Fianna Fail had its first elected representative in Northern Ireland in Gerry McHugh, MLA.

Gerry McHugh was, until 2007, a member of Sinn Fein.  He left Sinn Fein in November 2007 citing “lack of democracy” in his own party as the reason for his departure.  According to a BBC report, he also said this

“I feel the direction Sinn Fein is taking is more about appeasement of the British government and administrating British rule in Ireland rather than working towards the end of British occupation.”

On Slugger December 7, 2007, he is also reported as having said this

“Assembly structures support this – at both committee and plenary level unionists have majority control.  What was agreed at St Andrews cannot be delivered without unionist approval.”

Further along, the post also said

‘Mr McHugh said Sinn Féin’s decision to endorse policing in the north was a “factor” in his decision.

“I have no difficulties with the idea of civil policing but I have a difficulty with the excessive amounts of MI5 and military spooks operating in the six counties,” he said.

So it appeared at the time that he was against the St. Andrews Agreement and in particular, Sinn Fein’s acceptance of the PSNI as Northern Ireland’s official police.  He appeared to be slightly more hard-line than Sinn Fein officially was.

The Fianna Fail Party and Bertie Ahern, in particular, gave unconditional support to St. Andrews.

So already, Fianna Fail have accepted a “hard liner” into their ranks and one who is averse to ‘control freakery’.  That is most interesting.  In a sense, it is Sinn Fein’s ability to keep discipline with its membership that has been one of the hallmarks of its success.  One wonders how Mr. McHugh will react when Fianna Fail start to put their own restrictions on his political conduct. 

McHugh also needs to ‘get real’ in relation to the ’spooks.’  Were it not for those excellent brave people doing field intelligence work, we would by now have a tradgedy on our hands beginning with a dead police officer in Garrison.

It is going to be fascinating to see how Sinn Fein reacts.  Will this make it more or less likely that Martin McGuiness will break the Executive if the DUP do not deliver a date for P & J by Christmas?  Let the drama begin.

It is very hard, at this stage, to predict the impact of Fianna Fail onto the Northern Ireland Political scene.  Could their success depend upon how many big names defect from Sinn Fein and the SDLP?   Could this mark the death of the SDLP?  Could their entry into politics split the Nationalist vote and kill Martin McGuinnness’s dream of becoming first minister?

f they attract no more than a token number of big names, Fianna Fail might begin with similar difficulties to the ones facing the Conservatives in the late 1980s.  Fermanagh could become to Northern Ireland Fianna Fail what North Down eventually became to Northern Ireland Conservatives but their footholds might remain only that unless Fianna Fail’s central party invests substantial resources into their campaigning, as the Conservatives have recently began to do. 

They have one possible problem which the Conservatives do not have.  They are operating politics across a state boundary.  That causes difficulties as policy in one state may not be appropriate for the other.  On the other hand, Fianna Fail, as a populist party with no particular ideology may be the best Irish party suited to cross-border “horses for courses” politics.  On that particular aspect, they have a serious edge over Sinn Fein who are wedded rigidly to the left of the political spectrum.   

In time, Fianna Fail could become serious political opponents of our party but that is for the future. 

Those are my observations.  The truth is, I have absolutely no idea how what the future holds for Fianna Fail in Northern Ireland.  Today, meanwhile,  is a day for goodwill.   The Conservative Party will never allow this event to get in the way of the friendships which Britain has developed with the Republic of Ireland as a neighbouring state. 

We welcome the arrival of Fianna Fail into Northern Ireland politics.  We hope that their presence in the Northern Ireland political arena will create new opportunities to do political business with them.   We hope that there will be opportunities for both of our respective parties to implement great joint political initiatives which will enhance the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.

minaret

The entire world was  abashed when the results of a poll against the construction of new minarets in Switzerland have been published.

The extreme right party – Swiss People’s Party (SVP) – launched such a gross campaign against the minarets, using posters showing a woman with a burqa facing a Swiss flag covered with missile-shaped minarets, that everybody expected a defeat of the populist party.

But inf fact a majority of 57.7 % voted for the ban of minarets construction in Switzerland.

The Swiss People Party clearly exploited the irrational fear of “extensive islamisation” of the country and wanted to stop the Muslim tsunami…

But what tsunami ?  There are 400.000 Muslims in Switzerland, out of a total population of 7.739.000 inhabitants. Most of them work and are perfectly integrated in Swiss social life.  There are about 400 mosques in Switzerland and… 4 minarets!

So, people voted mostly against a fantastical fear, against a thread that merely doesn’t exist.  They attacked the symbol of a ghost, the ghost of winding up in an alien invasion…

But the result is a wider gap between communities and broader misunderstanding.  Muslims are sad and disappointed : they believed their Swiss neighbors trusted them.  They discover that it is so easy to trigger an irrational fear among normal populations…

The Swiss themselves are astonished.  They expected the proposal to be wiped away as a dirty cloth.  And yet, a majority of them heard the poisoned discourse of an extremist party and followed it… Some even said “I am ashamed to be Swiss today”.

Who knows at what extend the trust between the communities has been broken ? Who can tell to what extreme will the next moves be ?

The limits of direct democracy

How was this possible ?

The Swiss 1848 federal constitution defines a system of direct democracy which includes the right to organize a referendum on a topic, as long as they gather 50.000 signatures within 100 days (find more in this Wikipedia article).

That’s what happened with the minarets.  The Swiss People Party gathered the sufficient number of signatures and proposed the ban against the future construction of minarets.

This also shows the limits of a direct democracy.  The results of a referendum are highly dependent of how the question was asked and the topic presented to the voters.  In this case, it was a fearful and hateful  campaign that triggered the all process.  And the results are a shameful blow to the religious freedom of 400.000 people in a country which  has been  boasting about its religious  tolerance for centuries…

But, is a democracy that legally denies freedom of religious practice still a democracy ? When a democratic state denies its fundamental values in such a way, is it still a democratic state ?

Political reactions

In Switzerland itself, politicians are rather annoyed and you can see they don’t feel at ease about this vote (see the reaction of Micheline Calmy-Rey, Swiss Foreign Minister on this Guardian Video).

Abroad, reactions vary : the democrats are astonished and don’t understand why a centuries old democracy such Switzerland came to vote this way.  Populists and extreme right parties , such as the Lega Nord in Italy, are already taking the opportunity to promote such hatred and exclusion at home…

The United Nation warned the Swiss authorities even before the ban was proposed, arguing that it was an obvious discrimination, calling it “an unjustified restriction of religious freedom.  Now, legal expert of the UN are examining the legal issues of this election.

She orders
seven hundred dollars worth of merchandise
for Christmas for her pets.

Yells at me when I can’t hear her
spell “Misty” and “Sparky”
for the matching personalized doggy PJs

because my headset is wonky
and drowning in static,
and the boss won’t give me another one.

I press my hands to the headphones
and take it, apologizing, advising her
about sizes on merchandise I’ve never seen

as if I care about this, because for some reason
I do, I want her to be happy, want her
to buy more for the commission I’ll make if she does

so I make it up and keep a gentle tone
even though I’m so ready to be done with her
and her cherished pets, Misty and Sparky

with their obvious names, a couple of Black Labs,
probably sleek and shiny and well fed
without being overfat, who will soon be getting an extra run in everyday

on their new bridle leather harnesses
then sleeping in their new cedar framed twill cushioned beds.
If you want to understand why I listen

to punk, barking and snarling loudly all the way to work
and all the way home,
this should help.

the rhythm
of a casual game -
predictable clicks
of poker chips, cards
hiss-slapping, murmured
ritual phrases (check, damn,
read em and weep) –

water to the thirsty
in the wild desert of living
paycheck to paycheck,

interrupted of course
by coin against scratch ticket
like the fluffing of a pillow
in advance of lying down to dream.

and the conversation
that means nothing
above it all — luck talk,
small talk of weather
sport and celebrity foibles –

just the scirrocco
hot and dry,
destructive and as predictable
as the children who break into the moment,
ruining then lightening the mood –

give a wish of your own
to these small takers
of small comfort
in the face of regret,
fear, and resignation
to the lot of the mass minded.

it’s how the other
ninety percent live,

the better gamblers
who know the house always wins
over time.

I wrote yesterday that Lou Dobbs may make a bid for New Jersey senate in 2010. Dobbs strikes many as a center-right populist. However, there’s been recent talk that the resurgence of populist ideas may not be the strict domain of the right. Here comes some evidence: consumer advocate and four-time presidential loser Ralph Nader is mulling his own independent Senate bid in Connecticut. From the Associated Press:

Many people have called on Nader to jump into the hotly contested race to challenge Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, who has been struggling in recent polls. Nader said he’s getting increasingly more requests from Connecticut Green Party members, independents and supporters of Ned Lamont, the upstart Democrat who challenged Sen. Joe Lieberman in the 2006 election.

“I’m just absorbing a lot of the feedback before I make a decision,” said Nader, who appeared at the Noah Webster Library in West Hartford, where he was signing his new book, “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!”

More than 100 people turned out to hear Nader talk about his book, including some Green Party members who held signs that read, “Run Ralph Run!” The state’s Green Party has been stepping up efforts to encourage Nader to get into the race, saying this marks one of the best opportunities for the Greens to win a U.S. Senate seat.

Despite criticisms on the left as the man who got George Bush elected in 2000 and his ever-prickly attitude towards, well, just about everything, Nader remains a darling of the populist left. In a weird political climate where “the people” are all the rage, Nader’s fundamentally anti-corporate message could resonate. It doesn’t hurt that he’d be running against a sitting Democrat who is facing criticisms of corruption directly related to companies that spurred on the current financial crisis (in addition to health concerns) and a moderate Republican congressman who lost his seat in 2006 in the ever-more-blue Nutmeg state.

One things for sure, though–while conservatives will have a difficult time making heads or tails of Dobbs should he run, they’ll have no problem lashing out at Nader. Nader’s entry may even put Senator Rob Simmons on the top of some conservative’s Christmas list. Well, the NRSC can dream, anyways.

There is always someone that is willing to con the American people….Nigeria is full of them….we also have a bunch of home grown con artists at our disposal…..like the instant weight loss pills or the free anything that costs you money like a phone jack….you get the picture…..

After years of demonizing Latinos, both legal and illegal, Lou Dobbs will try to improve his image…..why?…..since leaving CNN he has been feeling the waters out for a possible run for Congress in the future…..as reported on CNN::

Mr. Dobbs, who left the network last week, has said in recent days that he is considering a third-party run for a New Jersey Senate seat in 2012, or possibly for president. Polls show voters unhappy with both parties, and strategists believe Mr. Dobbs could tap populist anger over economy issues just as Ross Perot did in the 1990s.

First, though, Mr. Dobbs is working to repair what a spokesman conceded is a glaring flaw: His reputation for antipathy toward Latino immigrants. In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair “amnesty.”

Mr. Dobbs couldn’t be reached Tuesday. Spokesman Bob Dilenschneider said Mr. Dobbs draws a distinction between illegal immigrants who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are “living upright, positive and constructive lives” who should be “integrated” into society. He said Mr. Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Latinos and is “smoothing the water and clearing the air.”

After a career as a broadcaster and Internet entrepreneur, Mr. Dobbs turned himself into a populist firebrand, campaigning against labor outsourcing, free trade and immigration.

People……a con is a con…..if he really actually changes his tone it will be a momentary lull until he can get his foot in the Washington circus and then he will return to his Beck-esque BS…it is a CON…..and nothing but a CON!

Fingret i luften heter den politik som socialdemokraterna tror ska rädda de usla opinionssiffrorna. Mona Sahlin noterar att högervinden är stark och missar därför helt vänstervinden som är på uppsegling.

Tydligen har hon även missat att läsa tidningen de senaste dagarna. Maud Olofssons opinionssiffror har ju knappast rasat på grund av vänstervridning inom centerns mest centraliserande citykommitté. Den slags (M)ittenpolitik vrider istället politiken ytterligare ett snäpp åt höger och snart går det inte att komma längre, om man inte ska riskera krocka med SD.

Det verkar som Mona förväxlar S’, FP:s & C:s målgrupper –  ur vilka tänkbara väljare kan hämtas - med SD:s; oroväckande, minst sagt. Vilka politiska krafter är det egentligen hon vill fria till, med detta sällsynt illa genomtänkta utspel i valrörelseupptakten? Sitter socialdemokraternas upphandlade mediastrateger i ett ljudisolerat rum dit ingen information från omvärlden når fram hur högljudd och alarmerande den än är.

Så här i vinterns gruvhål kan det kännas som det kompakta mörkret kongenialt illustrerar vad som händer i politiken. Istället för att blicka mot framtiden med ljusnande blick stirrar man in i ett svart hål, som uppslukar nuet med hypnotiskt magnetisk dragningskraft från ett europeiskt diktatoriskt historiskt förflutet.

Den hurtfriska naiviteten hos de styrande i Europas ledarskikt bortser från vad krig, tortyr och folkmord kan göra med en kontinent och vilka spår som det därför sätter långt in i nuet. SD:s framgångar i opinionen är ett levande och brännande aktuellt exempel på detta. Så även den övriga extremhögerns frammarsch i Europa.

Sämsta sättet att hantera situationen är således att hänsynstagande spela den i händerna genom ytterligare högervridning av politiken. Istället behövs motkraft från vänster. Om möjligt ännu sämre var steget att ratificera Lissabonfördraget så att den demokratiska kontrollen över den verkställande makten går förlorad. Lissabonfördraget ger farligt fria händer för de styrande över 500 miljoner européer försänkta i djup ekonomisk kris med en massarbetslöshet som är i växande.

Läs: Jonas Sjöstedt – Dansk vänstervind,   Cecilia Malmström – “Viktiga diskussioner om EU:s framtida utrikespolitik“, European Civil Liberties Network – Oppose the “Stockholm programme“

Se tidigare bloggpost: Ett segertåg ut ur riksdagen,   Vår Gud är oss en väldig Borg,   Den “legala nihilismen” och gasledningarna,  Vintergata,

Se även: Wall Street Journal – French Unemployed Rose 2 % in October,   British Unemployment to continue rising – Chancellor Darling,   Timesonline,

Läs: SVD – Sahlin varnar för politiskt kaos,  DN – Sahlin öppnar för styre med C och FP,   Expressen – Mona Sahlin kan tänka sig regera med C och FP,  AB – Styr hellre över blockgränsen än låter SD bli vågmästare,   DN – Rekordstort stöd för Sverigedemokraterna,  P J Anders Linder,   Peter Andersson – med rätt att tycka,  Mina moderata karameller,  GP – Sahlin varnar för politiskt kaos,  SVD – Mona Sahlin siktar mot stjärnorna men har svårt att lyfta,  SVT – Sahlin kan regera med C och FP,  AB2,   SVD3,   Expressen2,  AB3,   SVD4,    jj.n,    Holmqwist,     Spikharry’s Blog,     Andrea Doria,    annarkia,   Mitt i steget,    Kommunisternas blogg,   Jonas Sjöstedt,    gameover,   Elin Frid,    Germunds blogg,   Maria Ferm,   Robert Noord,    Kent Persson (m) blogg, Claes Krantz,   Kommunisternas blogg,   Olssons blogg,    Blocken blockerar,   Svensson,

Marţi, 24 noiembrie, Institutul de Studii Populare a organizat o dezbatere la care a fost invitat şi preşedintele Traian Băsescu. Competitor în al doilea tur de scrutin, preşedintele nua participat decât la prima parte a dezbaterii. El a luat cuvântul de două ori şi printre multele teme abordate a ţinut să precizeze auditoriului, dar şi presei prezente ce înseamnă şi ce nu înseamnă liberalismul în practică. Textul este extras din înregistrarea de la dezbatere şi este o redare exactă a cuvintelor preşdintelui în exerciţiu, Traian Băsescu.

„… eu aş prefera o abordare practică a ceea ce înseamnă liberalism, comparat cu ce nu înseamnă liberalism, tot din perspectivă practică. O să încerc câteva exemple de acţiune liberală, zic eu, care se încadrează foarte bine şi în ceea ce Partidul Democrat, astăzi PD-L, a făcut în ultima perioadă.

Cât timp s-au promovat – slavă Domnului, s-au promovat în timpul unui guvern liberal –, deci cât timp se promovează legislaţia care crează categorii privilegiate la salarii şi la pensii asta nu are nimic comun cu liberalismul. Ci doare se constituie în tare ale unui sistem clientelar.“

Kritik mot en mitten-högerpolitik ska komma från vänster. Därför har vänstern en unik roll i att kunna vara kritisk mot allt i från borgarna till S, men också ett politiskt fält som inte ger några radikala alternativ.

Lärdomen? Vänsterpartiets positionering har bidragit till att SD framstått som det enda partiet som slåss mot det gråbleka politiska etablissemanget. Detta trots att vänstern fortfarande är bärare av potentialen till konkreta handlingar mot orättvisor och politikerförakt.

Men kapaciteten att locka missnöjesröster har förlorats för denna gång – och tyvärr bidragit till att få ett högerextremt problem på halsen. Där har vänstern delvis sig själv att skylla.

Läs hela “för övrigt”-texten i Flamman.

In the aftermath of 2008 alot of conservatives seemed almost as if the life had been completely sucked out of them. Many could be found stumbling along, unshaven, hair akimbo, mumbling, “How could this happen? How could they have elected HIM?” I exaggerate some, yet the fact is that many conservatives were utterly dejected, having worked their tails off for a Republican few could stomach fully before his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Those who just stayed home felt worse yet, wondering aloud if there were any “true” conservatives left.

Yet just a little over a year later the right seems to be energized, coming off huge electoral victories and seeing protests all around the country. In a year President Obama has united a group of voters that it took President Bush six years to disintegrate to the point where each group had its own representative in the 08 dogfight. Talk of the “Tea Party movement” has overtaken conservative circles. From the size and scope of the protests, its clear that SOMETHING is going on. Indeed, the passion is palpable–to the point where some rallies have been taken with violence. Yet the media is hoping to paint a story of emerging discord within the Tea Party. From the Politico:

After emerging out of nowhere over the summer as a seemingly potent and growing political force, the tea party movement has become embroiled in internal feuding over philosophy, strategy and money and is at risk of losing its momentum.

The grass-roots activists driving the movement have become increasingly divided on such core questions as whether to focus their efforts on shaping policy debates or elections, work on a local, regional, state or national level or closely align themselves with the Republican Party, POLITICO found in interviews with tea party organizers in Washington and across the country.

However, in digging into the matter, the Politico only comes up with two strange scenarios within local groups to point at internal discord amongst the “movement.” They also claim that groups such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity are jockeying for credit. This is a good point but misses the mark. These groups were around long before the Tea Party movement began. Indeed, I would argue that there’s really no Tea Party movement at all. Rather, it is just a refocusing and reawakening of the American conservative movement.

One positive part of the Tea Party movement has been a re-awakening and strengthening of local groups. We have seen mulitiple tea parties here in the Valley, and there are new people coming to groups. Although Republicans handily re-nominated three sitting supervisors, two experienced tough contests from opponents that were energized in the final weeks by a protest against local tax reassessments that took a number of cues from the tea party movement. In the Staunton Augusta Waynesboro area a group of anti-establishment Republicans have twice now packed a local Shoney’s as people discussed issues of the day, both local and national in scope. The lesson here: decentralization can be healthy. The bigger issue, though is who will lead these people through the desert.

What has happened here is a rebranding of the conservative movement. Over the last thirty years conservative thinking has been the philosophy du jour. Yes, yes, we had eight years of Clinton–but even he practiced the infamous politics of triangulation to use conservative issues to get ahead (welfare reform, anyone?). What we have now is a head on assault that conservatives have never been used to. As I said, these organizations have existed and will continue to provide much needed resources to the overall conservative movement. What the movement is sorely in need of now, however, is a leader, just as one emerged in the late 1970s in the visage of Ronald Reagan.

Perhaps the biggest issue facing the right now is that no one will emerge as a leader, nor is there anyone serious about providing the intellectual force needed for the movement to spring from ideology to policy. It would seem right now that too many are focused on their own brand. I have no doubt of their sincerity, but right now there are too many leaders interested in scoring points on style rather than policy. Russ Douthat:

When the Republican minority needed an alternative to the Obama administration’s sweeping stimulus proposal, for instance, a number of free-market economists were ready with an answer: a payroll tax cut. It was plausible, elegant and easy to explain — but there was no Republican leader with the wit to seize on it and sell it.

You could tell the same story about regulatory reform. A slew of conservative economists and think tankers, led by the University of Chicago’s Luigi Zingales and the Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas, have been working on ways to protect free markets from a re-run of last fall’s “too big to fail” fiasco. But most Republican politicians would rather rail against bailouts that have already happened than talk about how to prevent them from happening again.

In the health care debate, too, conservative and libertarian policy thinkers have floated a number of plans to expand insurance coverage. Some are incremental and some are sweeping; some build on the existing system and some would essentially replace it. But any of them would be better than that threadbare plan House Republicans actually put forward, which would hardly expand coverage at all.

It’s not that there’s an shortage of people out there willing to take action. Indeed, even Glen Beck is moving from his role as a talker to an organizer. From the New York Times:

Glenn Beck, the popular and outspoken Fox News host, says he wants to go beyond broadcasting his opinions and start rallying his political base — formerly known as his audience — to take action.

To do so, Mr. Beck is styling himself as a political organizer. In an interview, he said he would promote voter registration drives and sponsor a series of seven conventions across the country featuring what he described as libertarian speakers.

It will be interesting to see if anything comes out of this. If Mr. Beck is able to actually start putting policy proposals, good on him. I highly doubt we’ll see Beck for, well, anything, bumperstickers any time soon (outside of those typically tounge in cheek ones found at Republican gatherings, anyways). However, it’s clear that we need to redefine ourselves. Although derided by many, the past shows that we are actually strengthened by inter-party contests. From David Broder:

But Palin has a strong point, especially when a party has as many unsettled issues as the Republicans do these days. In such a situation, primaries are the best way to test leaders and ideas. The modern Republican Party began recovering from the many defeats of the New Deal era only in 1952, when Dwight Eisenhower, a war hero, defeated Adlai Stevenson. But before Ike could win the general election, he had to face down Robert A. Taft, the leader of the GOP congressional wing and an embodiment of conservatism. Their battle started in the New Hampshire primary and continued through bitter convention roll calls testing and finally overthrowing establishment control.

Another such fight came in 1980, after the ruin of Watergate had restored Democrats to the White House. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush squared off, with Bush winning the first round in Iowa, and Reagan forced to defend his claim in New Hampshire and in later primaries. Without those tests, Reagan would not have been the candidate who ousted Jimmy Carter.

The task for the party and the movement writ large? Connect with the Tea Partiers on their terms, but don’t let them drive the dialogue and don’t count on them for leadership. From the New York Times:

The trick, some Republicans said, is to guide populists’ energies toward an optimistic agenda built on those themes. “If we don’t take this anger and frustration, as legitimate as I believe it is, and channel it into a good, a positive, then we won’t be successful,” said Rick Santorum, a former Republican senator from Pennsylvania.

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, who was chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1993 to 1997 and is a potential 2012 president candidate, cited the 1994 House elections as a model for what the party can accomplish now. In that election, he said, Republicans attracted voters who in 1992 had backed H. Ross Perot’s third-party candidacy.

“We figured out very quickly that the vast majority of them agreed with Republicans on most issues, and we courted them,” Mr. Barbour said. “We invited them to be involved and made it plain that we were interested in their views and that we shared most views. And I think the same thing would be said about the tea party leaders and activists.”

The next year will be absolutely crucial in terms of comes of the movement in the long term. What we need now more than anything is leadership. Leadership will mean not only speaking out and action but motivating people to act. Who will this person be?
Stay tuned.

Flera opinionsmätningar visar att Sverigedemokraterna kommer in i riksdagen. Jag befarar att det kan bli så. Det verkar så. Vidrigt. Fruktansvärt deprimerande.

De kan till och med få en vågmästarroll. Då hoppas jag blockpolitiken upphör. (Men vart leder det? De känner sig bortstötta och hämndlystna. Få fler och fler supportrar. Eller??)

Folkpartiets landsmöte har idag röstat emot sin partilednings linje i förslaget om “medborgarkurs för alla invandrare som vill bli svenska medborgare“. Visserligen har vissa röstat snarare för att inte förknippas med Sverigedemokraterna än att de själva är emot men jag tror ändå att en majoritet av partiets ombud på landsmötet ville stå upp för det toleranta samhälle som liberalerna ofta stoltserar sig med. Siffrorna skilde sig inte så avsevärt mycket mellan ja-sidan och nej-sidan men det räckte för att få folkpartiledningen lite ur balans och visa att populism inte alltid är vad som löser problemen på riktigt.

Partistyrelsens föredragare, integrationsministern Nyamko Sabuni, var dock tydlig med vad partistyrelsen menade med medborgarkursen. Hon uttyckte det som att :  “vuxna som kommer till Sverige ska ha möjlighet att reflektera över den värdegrund som de fått från sin uppväxt och skoltid. En värdegrund som många gånger skiljer sig från den svenska”. Jag personligen har väldigt svårt att se respekt eller tolerans för olikheter och mångfald i den ovanstående meningen där de värdegrunder som andra har med sig direkt räknas som undermåliga och underlägsna och att de vuxna som bär de “undermåliga värdena” bör reflektera och ge upp allt för att ta “svenska” värdegrunder. Vilka värden som är “svenska” har hon inte definierat och jag ser det inte som något mer än rena populismen.

Den ovanstående meningen är precis så som SD menar men de kanske förklarar det med andra ord. Det är precis den tanken om att “mångfald och mångkulturalism” inte är önskvärda. Därför är det glädjande att en majoritet av ombuden på landsmötet röstade emot det populistiska förslaget.

Sarah Palin, former vice presidential candidate and governor of Alaska, signs a copy of her new book in Washington, Pennsylvania.  JASON COHN / JASON COHN /MCT

Saturday, 11.21.09

Will Palin’s book tour jump-start a political movement?

BY ERIKA BOLSTAD

WASHINGTON, Pa. — When Sarah Palin made her first trip to western Pennsylvania as GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s fresh-faced running mate, the Arizona senator warned locals that she “doesn’t let anyone tell her to sit down.”

Palin returned to Washington, Pa. on her own Saturday as a “Commonsense Conservative,” a definition crafted on her own terms and in her own words in her best-selling memoir, “Going Rogue.”

“It’s grass roots America; it’s common sense,” said Joy Koplinski, 62, a retiree from Pittsburgh who waited overnight in the parking lot of a Sam’s Club warehouse store for Palin to autograph a copy of the book. “She’s the female Ronald Reagan.”

In the first few days of a cross-country book tour to promote her memoir, the former Alaska governor’s supporters have greeted her with a populist fervor unmatched in Internet-age Republican politics.

From her first stop last week in Grand Rapids, Mich., to Saturday’s lunchtime book signing at the Washington, Pa., Sam’s Club, thousands of people have lined up for hours, often in the cold, for a few moments in Palin’s presence.

via Will Palin’s book tour jump-start a political movement? – Politics AP – MiamiHerald.com.

Jan Björklund har meddelat att Folkpartiet tänker ta debatten med Sverigedemokraterna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Så länge det sker på sakligt vis är detta ett positivt besked. Jag hoppas därför att tid och fokus inte läggs på anklagelser om främlingsfientlighet och rasistiska rötter, utan istället kommer att ägnas åt arbetsmarknadspolitik, energi, integration, äldreomsorg och skatter.

Det är också viktigt att tänka på när invandringen och integrationen dyker upp – för det kommer de garanterat att göra – att det främst handlar om hur man ska optimera resultaten från invandringen, och hur vi ska gå tillväga för att göra detta. Utlandsfödda som bosätter sig i Sverige ska lära sig språk och lagar – och det är samma princip även för infödingar i det här landet.

Däremot är det populistiskt trams att tjata om svenska värderingar och normer. Detta blir dessutom extra farligt om det kombineras ihop med Folkpartiets partistyrelses förslag om en obligatorisk medborgarskapskurs för alla som vill söka svenskt medborgarskap. Resultatet blir i sådana fall att politiker sitter och hittar på värderingar på godtyckligt vis som ska läras ut till alla immigranter. När detta sker i diktaturer brukar det kallas politisk propaganda, och jag hoppas verkligen det inte blir en verklighet i Sverige.

Ett sådant resonemang skulle för övrigt innebär att det också finns osvenska beteenden, och tycker ni ärligt att vi svenskar är så speciella? Menar ni på fullt allvar att det i världen finns 200 specifika samlingar av beteenden som är möjliga att skilja åt och dessutom inte bör beblandas? Komigen.

Nej, fokus ska vara på språk, lagar och regler. I Sverige ska man tala svenska, och man måste följa de lagar och regler som finns. Men ingen ska behöva tvingas till att lära sig att svära med könsord, använda gud och satan i vardagliga konversationer, eller att man ska stå upp i bussen hellre än att sätta sig bredvid någon man inte känner.

Hoppas majoriteten av Folkpartiet tycker så också.

Simon Hedlin Larsson

De miercuri de la miezul noptii Irlanda boceste si urla din toti rarunchii aidoma unui prescolar caruia i s-a stricat o jucarie si acum le arunca suparat pe celelalte din tarc. Reactia mai mult decat exagerata a insularilor e de un prost gust ce frizeaza ridicolul, Football Association of Ireland si pana si Ministrul Justitiei in guvernul de la Dublin cersind fara demnitate la FIFA rejucari impotriva regulamentului.

A fost o eroare de arbitraj, o greseala umana, ca destule altele in meciuri de fotbal mai mult sau mai putin importante, cu o mai mare ori mai mica miza. Arbitrul asistent n-a semnalizat pozitia de ofsaid a doi jucatori francezi, la o lovitura libera executata de Malouda in prelungirile barajului de la Paris, iar continuarea o stim cu totii.

Uitati de hentul lui Henry… in prealabil a fost ofsaid!

Daca respectiva pozitie afara din joc ar fi fost semnalizata prompt iar arbitrul de centru suedez ar fi acordat lovitura libera in favoarea Irlandei, nu s-ar fi ajuns la valul populist de oprobiu public impotriva lui Thierry Henry si prin extensie la adresa selectionatei Frantei si pe alocuri chiar a natiunii franceze. Marul discordiei ar fi trebuit sa fie legat de ofsaid, nicidecum de oportunismul ulterior al lui Henry.

Telefoane in direct, in emisiuni, mesaje text si comentarii pe marginea jocului, cu toate au oferit tot atat de multe canale pentru ca publicul insular sa-si verse naduful, dandu-i-se apa la moara si datorita reactiei oficialilor. Iar ce s-a spus si s-a scris aduce nici mai mult nici mai putin cu asasinarea caracterului lui Henry.

Rasul lumii…Comentatorii BBC n-au avut habar de henturi dar au spus apoi ca-i incredibil sa nu fi fost vazut de arbitru!

Culmea ironiei, intr-o mostra evidenta de ipocrizie, ce spune multe despre postura ingrata si uneori fara sansa de scapare a arbitrilor, comentatorii in direct ai meciului pentru BBC Radio 5 Live au sesizat infractiunea abia la peste un minut dupa comiterea hentului, gratie reluarii de pe monitoarele video, moment din care insa au intors brusc foaia, referindu-se la “incredibilul” situatiei: “Este incredibil ca n-a fost vazut de arbitru si e incredibil ca Irlanda sa fie astfel eliminata!”  In prealabil, in comentariul fazei, gazetarul se referise la “o deviere”, despre care puteti asculta aici… http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8367817.stm

Domnilor comentatori le-au trebuit vreo 80 de secunde sa se dumireasca de faptul ca Henry comisese hent dar li s-a parut incredibil ca arbitrul sa nu fi vazut acelasi incident…

Tonul indignat revoltat al acuzatorilor aratand cu degetul spre detinatorul la zi al Champions League, etichetat drept “a cheat“, un trisor, cauta tapi ispasitori dupa ce Irlanda ratase in grupa oportunitatea de a invinge Italia, de care a fost egalata in minutul 90, dupa care n-a dispus nici macar de Muntenegru, in ultimul joc din calificari. Locul doi. La baraj.

Unde, in meci tur, la Dublin, Franta si-a demonstrat superioritatea si a invins meritat cu 1-0, fara ca Irlanda sa concretizeze cele cateva oportunitati avute. Frustrati de visele risipite in fata finalistelor Cupei Mondiale din 2006, unii jucatori irlandezi cautau nod in papura lui Diarra, imediat dupa prima mansa, incercand sa-si faca dreptate dupa fluierul de final.

Miercuri, la Paris, in probabil cea mai buna evolutie a Irlandei din ultimii ani, capitanul Robbie Keane a egalat in prima repriza scorul general al barajului, 1-1, dupa pauza atat O’Shea cat si Duff si acelasi Keane avand oportunitati ideale de a majora diferenta si implicit de a califica Insula de Smarald la turneul final. Ar fi fost probabil o calificare meritata, gratie evolutiei din Orasul Luminii, unde o linie de mijloc cu doi jucatori de la Stoke City, unul de la Blackburn Rovers si un al patrulea de la Fulham a cam manevrat in voie in fata unui “Cocos Galic” neimpunandu-se acolo nici in fata Romaniei.

Dar ocaziile se razbuna si legea nescrisa a fotbalului i-a lovit pe oaspeti aidoma bumerangului.

Si daca golul lui Gallas n-ar fi fost validat, Irlanda tot n-ar fi fost calificata. Unde-i atunci furtul calificarii?

Irlanda plange ca i-ar fi fost rapit dreptul de a ajunge in Africa de Sud insa chiar si daca golul lui Gallas n-ar fi fost validat, nu este cert ca verzii ar fi triumfat la loviturile de departajare spre care curgea meciul. Ar fi ramas 1-0, cu sanse relativ egale pentru combatante de a se califica de la 11 metri. Si-atunci!?!

Ultimul joc la Campionatul Mondial pentru ambele reprezentative se soldase cu esecuri la penaltyuri, Franta in fata Italiei, la Berlin, in finala, iar Irlanda in fata Spaniei, in Coreea de Sud, in optimile din 2002. Cine si-ar fi infrant emotiile si ar fi triumfat? Sunteti convinsi ca Irlanda? Si-atunci de unde pana unde pot afirma irlandezii ca au fost furati de o accedere la Mondial? De la 1-0 in prelungiri pana la un al doilea gol marcat, pe care l-au tot irosit cu nonsalanta, e cale lunga.

Beckham recunoaste ca e greu de spus daca ar fi putut proceda altfel decat Henry

Pe cateva din aceste linii au marsat si David Beckham si Roy Keane, ultimul, in cadrul unei conferinte de presa in calitate de manager al lui Ipswich Town, ambii nefiind de acord cu catalogarea de “trisor” atribuita de mass-media si publicul larg atacantului francez si gasind nu atat scuze acestuia cat explicatii pertinente si puncte de vedere implicand mai multi factori.

De fapt, e o practica de teren de antrenament a fotbalistilor, ce poate deveni reflex necontrolat, de a repotrivi, “reaseza” balonul, odata acesta scapat afara din joc. Si aici poate sari in ajutorul lui Henry latura involuntara, neintentionata, a abordarii sale. Si foarte putini jucatori profesionisti, fie ei si irlandezi ori britanici in general, ce doresc a-si asuma un statut nedovedit de cavaleri nobili ai dreptatii, mai albi ca albul, arogandu-si implicit un compas moral absolut, ar fi procedat probabil altfel decat francezul, in circumstantele date. Dar dupa razboi multi viteji se aduna sa arunce cu pietre.

Cu fair-play si realism, irlandezul Keane indeamna contestatarii sa se uite mai intai in propria ograda

Conferinta lui Roy Keane este o mostra absoluta de echidistanta si curaj in a-ti apara un punct de vedere nepopular, probabil total indegirabil pentru multi pasionati de fotbal, inclusiv compatrioti, in conditiile in care fostul mijlocas a purtat si banderola de capitan al “verzilor”. De urmarit parerea sa pe http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8370497.stm

In contrast cu spusele intelepte ale lui Keane, de fapt o reactie la exagerarile debitate dupa returul din Franta, s-a pravalit un urias val de articole populiste, in cel mai pur stil al maniei proletare, terfelind reputatia lui Thierry Henry dar mergand mult mai departe si impungand din varii unghiuri nationala Frantei. Deloc de mirare, venind de peste Canalul Manecii. Rezidurile sindromului de superioritate, al arogantei atotcunoscatoare si fara echivoc, a veninului perpetuu improscat de urmasii imperialismului ce inca isi asmute tentaculele de sub alta palarie, au degenerat in alte patinaje cu ”inamicul” la tinta fixa. Ce deliciu, sa aiba a le reprosa ceva, cu un aer revendicativ, rivalilor de peste Canal. Mi-ar trebui ore si pagini intregi si n-ar suporta virtualul, rosind de rusine si manie, sa descarc vitriolul altui exces de frustrare insulara.   

Irlanda, in tricouri albe si chiloti verzi, n-a avut 15 secunde de inspiratie absoluta, aidoma altor alb-verzi in Paris, intr-un 17 si nu 18 noiembrie, acum 16 ani, cand Franta era lasata acasa, eliminata in ultima secunda a calificarilor la US World Cup ‘94. De ce n-a reusit Irlanda acel al doilea gol calificant, aidoma lui Emil, fie in repriza secunda, fie dupa egalarea nemeritata reusita de Gallas? La aceste ratari sa fi gasit un raspuns capitanul risipitor Robbie Keane si nu la presupunerile ca Platini si Blatter si-ar fi trimis bezele, strangeri de mana si mesaje text, din susul tribunei, incantati de deznodamantul favorabil Frantei si implicit turneului final in organizarea FIFA…

Stim cu totii ca FIFA are bubele ei, ca Mondialul e o taraba corporatista a companiilor, sponsorilor, marcilor de echipament, ca Franta e dorita ca “brand” si putere de cumparare a suporterilor ei, ca Irlanda nu e in aceeasi categorie a marilor dezirabile, ca fotbalul si societatea in general aluneca pe o panta ireversibila a degradarii conduitei, probitatii si integritatii umane, si-am mai aflat acum ca si alte mari vedete pot oferi mostre de oportunism extrem intru atingerea scopurilor, le stim pe toate astea, insa nu credeam ca Irlanda era buricul pamantului si cea mai nedreptatita dintre nedreptatite. Bocetul federatiei, demnitarilor si fanilor ei pare insa a starni mai degraba ilaritate ori dispret decat simpatie.

Ai pierdut? Continua…

Hårt trängda i opinionsundersökningarna är moderaternas stödpartier ute och fiskar desperat i populismens bakvatten. Björklund formulerar sig därför mot SD för att själv kunna närma sig dem. Återigen lyfts kravet fram på språkkunskaperna i svenska som ett av villkoren för svenskt medborgarskap. Ett språk som på grund av sin minimala utbredning i ett större perspektiv är på gränsen till ointressant.

I ivern att plocka poäng vet Björklund inga gränser varken självgoda, fyra-procentiga eller sportsliga. Björklund har ju aldrig haft tort på fötterna när det käller källkritik. Jag minns väl hur han hängdes ut för dryga året sedan när han förvanskat OECD-rapporter kring resultat i skolan. Den gången var det SR nu sköter han det själv inför öppen ridå. Zlatan som invandrare, hmmm! Allt för att plocka en poäng. Lyckligtvis för Barca är Zlatan en bättre poängproducent än de politiker vilka försöker åka snålskjuts. (Själv är jag fullständigt ointresserad av fotboll men det här var en strålande passiv insats Zlatan!)

Läsen även Brors analys på DN.se

I made that up myself.

While Newsweek belittles her and liberals snigger at highlights from her latest disastrous interview, Going Rogue is selling fast and Sarah Palin is getting rich.

Liberal pundits correctly identify the Palin and Beck variety of populism as a symptom of an increasingly alienated and marginalized white middle class, and they are right to note that the Republican Party’s efforts to capitalize on this anger is ultimately a losing strategy.

There are political implications in the fact that America is becoming more urban, more diverse, and more liberal. As Obama’s victories in states like North Carolina and Colorado showed, using divisive politics to attract disenchanted lower and middle class whites is becoming less effective as the country becomes less, well, white.

While Middle America feels that it is being deliberately marginalized by the coastal elites, deep down it knows that it’s a numbers game, and that it’s losing. Demographic trends may one day make the white middle class a sideline player; for now, it fuels the inchoate anger that has become a major obstacle to Obama’s agenda.

And for better or worse, coastal elites are a much easier scapegoat than birth rates

But there’s more than demography at work here.  Recall the deliberate ambiguity and no-time-for-debate urgency that obfuscated the financial meltdown, the ensuing bailout packages and the quick recovery of executive compensation. It’s easy to understand why everyday folks feel that the political elites are working against their best interests – hell, I feel the same way.

The lesson Obama needs to take from this is that policy matters less than the Republicans would like to believe. Mercifully, Palin long ago gave up trying to articulate policy; not surprisingly, this has done nothing to hurt her popularity, which has always been about identity anyway.

Back home, people will say (more matter of fact than defiantly), that no, Sarah Palin doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, and neither do they. She probably doesn’t know what a hedge on a credit default swap is either, and that resonates with people.

The best Obama can hope for is to create the perception among Middle America that he is well intentioned, if misguided. Until he does, that resonance will continue to be a problem for him.

A sequel to the praiseworthy primer, “Palin the Post-Partisan Populist Pals around with Pundits.”

It’s always entertaining to watch Ivy-educated well-connected authors pontificate on the need for common people to tear down Ivy-educated well-connected authors, but Matthew Continetti’s defense of a “new populism” strains even the relaxed standard of credibility applied to such antics. Setting aside factual problems — most Americans still favor healthcare reform, especially with a public option, and stripping power from insurance companies is a profoundly anti-elitist move — the central conceit of the argument, that Sarah Palin stands in unbroken succession with populist luminaries like Andrew Jackson and William Jennings Bryan, is simply a bridge too far.

The first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West.

The analysis goes awry at the outset. Jackson and Bryan were not just populists, but masters of the art, heirs to a tradition begun in Rome and perfected in America. Classicists will recall Cincinnatus — the farmer-turned-dictator who saved the Republic and, upon completion of his duties, promptly returned to his farm to till his land, spurning the lifetime of fame and fortune that could’ve been his. Like Washington, Jackson and Bryan both drew substantially (if unknowingly) from the Cincinnatus myth. They were brilliant men who could skillfully navigate the halls of power, but chose not to. Visitors to Jackson’s Hermitage (Continetti and I agree, it’s well worth the trip) are treated to a full picture of a deeply intellectual man who, despite partially embracing his opponents’ portrayal of him as an illiterate backwoodsman, maintained a vast library, read and re-read Plutarch, and decorated his home with maps of the growing American Republic. This was a complex man — not a “commoner,” not an “elite,” but something uniquely American. Despite his unfortunate embrace of creationism (and… uh… racism), Bryan was much the same: he maintained the sensibilities of the common man, but advocated for them by taking up the weapons and vestments of the elites.

William Jennings Bryan.

Continetti is right to praise these men, as exemplars of a substantially forgotten American political tradition — the expert statesman who does it because he has to, and never forgets the roots of democracy. However, Continetti misses the mark by putting Palin in their company. Palin, he argues, is their natural successor, misunderstood and maligned by the elites as an uneducated backwater hick. Fine. But there the similarities end. Jackson and Bryan were successful for their ability to walk both worlds — like Cincinattus, they could deploy the knowledge, expertise, and rigorous methodology of the educated elites, but through the perspective of, and to the exclusive service of, the common man. Palin, however, lacks the intellect that transformed Jackson and Bryan into paragons, and Continetti’s “intuitive faith in builders and traders, in hockey moms and plumbers,” is inadequate to supply the deficit, because it is meaningless. What could it possibly mean?

The Palin myth breaks down here, because ultimately, the stereotypes of the contemptible elite and the virtuous but “simple” small town dweller must be unsatisfying. Few elites are actually evil and subversive; and, more importantly, few small-towners are “simple.” The vast majority of Americans, regardless of domicile, are intelligent, profoundly interested men and women, committed to themselves and their country. Only aspirant demagogues like Sarah Palin actually (and gleefully) live the stereotype of the willfully ignorant backwoodsmen. Accordingly, when Palin claims to speak for and embody small town America, we should be offended by the implied insult. The average American, whether she lives in the city or the suburbs, is closer to a Jackson than a Palin, and thank God for that.

Somewhere along the line we decided to sever the parts of the Cincinnatus myth that lies at the heart of American populism: today we call someone a populist for simply identifying with the common man, and to hell with the vigorous competence and record of service that marked the populist movement’s first and finest avatars. To equate a lack of achievements and an utter disinterest in ever attaining distinction with the notion of the American “common man” demeans us all, and dupes us into selecting leaders based on their ability to act, rather than their ability to lead. We deserve better, we are better, and that, ultimately, is why Sarah Palin must fail.

I can’t believe it. I’m actually finding myself sort-of agreeing with Sarah Palin about something. Newsweek’s new cover is, at best, deeply weird. Some might argue that since Palin posed for that photo in the first place, she shouldn’t be calling its use by Newsweek sexist.

The problem is the use of that photo, ripped out of its context of an interview with Runner’s World and plopped onto the cover of a hard news magazine, is odd, to say the least. I completely fail to see how it passes editor Jon Meacham’s test of conveying the message the magazine is trying to send. How does a picture of Palin posing in running gear that appeared in Runner’s World (which, incidentally, is a completely normal kind of image that you would see of any famous person in that magazine’s “I’m a Runner” series) in conjunction with an article about running in any way convey or reinforce the message that she is bad news for for both the Republican Party and the country as a whole? By the way, that message is one I wholeheartedly agree with, lest you think I’m defending Palin here.

Maybe Newsweek is trying to make some connection between her willingness to do such a magazine interview and photo shoot with the evils of populism, but I can’t see how that connection can be realistically made. It’s incredibly tenuous at best. She was photographed in running gear that, being a sub-four-hour marathoner, she presumably uses regularly while discussing running in a magazine about running. While I agree with the basic and necessarily brutal assessment of Sarah Palin that she’s essentially the Second Coming of William Jennings Bryan minus any sense of economic justice, that cover doesn’t help make that point.

Think about it this way: we all know George W. Bush is an avid distance runner and that John Kerry is a world-class windsurfer for his age group. We all know that there are plenty of photographs of Bush in running gear and of Kerry in windsurfing attire, some of which have appeared in magazines devoted to their respective sports. Have any of those ever been put onto the cover of a hard news magazine to make some kind of point about someone’s impact on our political process? I’ve never seen this done with a male politician, so why is it okay to do with a female one?

I wouldn’t go so far as Palin in saying that Newsweek’s cover is “oh-so-expected” of the magazine’s coverage or perspective. I will agree, though, that the decision to use it is “out-of-context” and, if not consciously sexist, at least rooted in some level of unconscious sexism.

I believe some of the failure to notice this arises from “the boy who cried wolf” syndrome. Here we have a politician who has always been despicably quick to falsely claim unfair treatment and cynically play the victim to boost her political career. As a result, the first time something genuinely strange in media coverage does pop up, we’re slow to see it.

by matttbastard

(Image: Tacoma Urbanist, Flickr)

Sarah Palin is back — and, seemingly, everywhere, as she launches a book tour (and, perhaps, a run at the White House in 2012).

Max Blumenthal:

In a Republican Party hoping to rebound in 2010 on the strength of a newly energized and ideologically aroused conservative grassroots, Palin’s influence is now unparalleled. Through her Facebook page, she was the one who pushed the rumor of “death panels” into the national healthcare debate, prompting the White House to issue a series of defensive responses. Unfazed by its absurdity, she repeated the charge in her recent speech in Wisconsin. In a special congressional election in New York’s 23rd congressional district, Palin’s endorsement of Doug Hoffman, an unknown far-right third-party candidate, helped force a popular moderate Republican politician, Dede Scozzafava, from the race. In the end, Palin’s ideological purge in upstate New York led to an improbable Democratic victory, the first in that GOP-heavy district in more than 100 years.

Though the ideological purge may have backfired, Palin’s participation in it magnified her influence in the party. In a telling sign of this, Congressman Mark Kirk, a pro-choice Republican from the posh suburban North Shore of Chicago, running for the Senate in Illinois, issued an anxious call for Palin’s support while she campaigned for Hoffman. According to a Kirk campaign memo, the candidate was terrified that Palin would be asked about his candidacy during her scheduled appearance on the Chicago-based Oprah Winfrey Show later this month — the kick-off for her book tour — and would not react enthusiastically. With $2.3 million in campaign cash and no viable primary challengers, Kirk was still desperate to avoid Palin-backed attacks from his right flank, however hypothetical they might be.

“She’s gangbusters!” a leading conservative radio host exclaimed to me. “There is nobody in the Republican Party who can raise money like her or top her name recognition.”

In contemporary politics, money + brand recognition = power –period. For a Republican party scrambling to maintain its ever-shrinking base, that makes Sarah Palin its most influential personality. And with the Democratic Party and the White House being seen, rightly or wrongly, as the party of Goldman Sachs, an avowed fauxpulist like Palin (she’s ‘one of us!’) driving the tone and tenor of conservative politics in an age of economic instability is not something to airily discount.

Tim Egan:

Right now, a time when only 20 percent of Americans call themselves Republicans and Democrats are shrinking as well, the independents are disgusted with both parties. In large part, it’s because neither one seems to be on their side.

The early warning shots came on Nov. 3, against an ineffective former Wall Street executive, ousted New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, and the billionaire mayor who barely bought himself a third term, Michael Bloomberg of New York. Both felt the back hand of an electorate that feels as if the system is rigged against them.

A year ago, most people were open-minded about the ground-shaking changes that came with the economic collapse. Polls found a slim majority in favor of Wall street bailouts to save the economy. They would listen, watch, wait.

By this fall, the majority were not only against the bailouts, but in favor of curbing pay on Wall Street, and tightening government regulation of same.

The continuous drip of perceived unfairness continues. One day it’s news that Goldman Sachs seems to have stepped ahead of the line of those waiting to receive H1N1 vaccines, prompting questions about why investment bankers were getting doses rather than children or pregnant women. This week, Gallup found one in five parents saying they were unable to get swine flu vaccine for their children.

Another day brings a report that the top banks are raising credit card interest rates – some as high as 29 percent, which would shame a Mob extortionist — even against people who have always paid on time. This is the thanks we get?

If Congress steers through the Great Recession without responding to the thousand points of pain among average Americans, people will see them for what they are in bottom-line terms: an insulated club. Proof, just recently, came from a Center for Responsive Politics report that 237 members of Congress — 44 percent — are millionaires, compared to just 1 percent for the country as whole.

It’s difficult to take the clumsy rhetorical and symbolic excesses of the so-called Tea Party protest movement seriously. The ham-fisted polyester populism employed by some of the more exuberant adherants seems designed to drive a stake through the barely-beating heart of parody. But the (partly manufactured) rage that is driving teabaggers to target moderate Republicans like Dede Scozzafava or burn Speaker Pelosi in effigy isn’t simply fodder for mockery by progressive bloggers and #p2 snarkmeisters; it’s a bellwhether for a burgeoning class divide that threatens to leave the Congressional millionaire elite behind — and give a boost to any political movement that figures out how to tap that rage, regardless of where that movement lies on the ideological spectrum.

The fall of social democracy in Europe may provide clues as to how this could play out if progressives fail to heed the mood of the electorate. In a piece for Red Pepper published in June of 2008, Magnus Marsdal tried to explain how and why the populist right has been ascendant in Europe over the past decade, using the Norwegian Freedom Party (FrP) as an example:

Talking to people who voted for the Norwegian populist right offers useful insights for anyone trying to fight radical right-wing populism elsewhere in Europe, particularly when it comes to what I call ‘identity politics’.

How does the FrP make the worker-voter identify with a party that is positioned so far to the right? Hostility towards foreigners and mobilisation of ‘white’ or ‘Norwegian’ identity plays a big part. So does the male- orientated FrP’s anti- feminism, which mobilises identity among male voters.

The right-wing populists also play with a particular type of consumer identity that sets the population as consumer individuals against the state, the tax system and the elite. These are the obvious side of the FrP’s identity politics.

There are two other elements that are less apparent but even more important to consider, both in Norway and in other countries where right-wing populism is on the rise.

Worker identity
First, the FrP’s rhetoric offers its own worker-identity. This is not the worker as opposed to bosses and owners. It is the worker contrasted to the lazy and dole abusers ‘below’ and ‘posh’, cultured people ‘above’.

It is quite normal for people to imagine society as if it were split into three different sections, with themselves in the middle. Moral values determine who is worthy, and who is unworthy, both ‘up there’, ‘down below’ and among ‘proper working people’. The unworthy ‘up there’ include all those who represent the state, the Labour Party, the government and everybody else who ‘lies and steals money from common workers’, as Hans Erling Willersrud, the car worker who is the main character in The FrP Code, puts it.

Among people ‘down there’, the worthy are those who, through no fault of their own, have become ill, disabled or been made redundant. Everyone else is unworthy, including those who don’t do their jobs properly. For many workers worthiness equals skills – you are worth something because you have skills and you do something. This way of measuring worth and dignity is an alternative to measuring by income or education. On this essentially moral scale, the ‘honest worker’ comes out on the same level as, or above, the rich person or the leading politician.

The unworthy also include the dishonest: those who turn with the wind, pay lip service to all, who are not ‘solid wood’, as Norwegians say. The worst are probably those who suck up to ‘posh’ people and intellectuals one moment, only to denounce them among workers the next. Not being perceived as ‘solid wood’ has created quite a few problems for politicians, especially for the Labour Party, which needs to present itself favourably to different groups at the same time.

From my interviews with working-class FrP voters, I made a simple model to show how those ‘up there’ and ‘down there’ stand in relation to the ‘proper working people’. The elite ‘up there’ are divided into three different types:

• the ‘know-it-alls’ linked to the education system and the state;
• the greedy, found at the top of the economy; and
• the politically powerful (often connected to the ‘know-it- alls’ and the greedy).

[...]

A second element to the FrP’s identity politics is that of aggrieved identity. ‘I’m just an ordinary worker, I have no fucking say,’ says Hans Erling Willersrud. He knows what it means to be at the boss’s beck and call and he’s had enough of the condescending attitude of Labour politicians who ‘can’t be bothered to listen to what [he’s] got to say’.He had some contact with the social security office when he was sick, and ‘has had it up to here with the system’. ‘They wouldn’t even believe he was in pain,’ says his mother Eli.

Hans Erling thinks politicians and bureaucrats are driving his country into the ground. He believes the social democratic elite has arranged things so the rich, the shrewd and the sleazy can take advantage of the system at the expense of the common man. He’s at the bottom of the pile at work. He’s at the bottom of the pile at the dole office. He’s at the bottom of the pile in the trade union (as an FrP voter) and in politics in general. He sees himself as a ‘political underdog’.

This doesn’t mean he is weak. On the contrary: being an underdog is not about lacking personal strengths, but finding that they don’t count for anything. More powerful people, regardless of their competence, are lording it over theunderdog, without recognising his skills or paying attention to what he actually knows, thinks or wants. It’s humiliating. He feels aggrieved.

And how does a political party like the FrP exploit the popular mood? It uses political language and images to touch a nerve with people who feel ignored, trampled on and overruled.

Carl Hagen’s most important ploy is to place himself in the role of the underdog. When he rages against the other parties wanting to keep a strong FrP out of government, he says, ‘Our voters will not be treated as second-rate.’ This simple sentence is perfect for connecting with people who on a daily basis, whether at work, at school or in the media, feel that they are treated like second-class citizens. Widening the focus, Hagen implies that what ordinary workers are in the workplace, the FrP is in the party political system. The voters can identify only too readily with what he is saying.

At the same time, Hagen – in the role of the affronted man who refuses to back down – offers the promise of vindication. For more than 30 years he has paid for the conceited sins of others, he tells them. But he turns the other cheek. Unlike the powerful and the arrogant, he is not driven by haughtiness or personal ambition. He is only fighting for what’s fair.

This underdog pose is brilliant because it can be applied to so many different voter groups. Above/below is a relationship that most people can recognise. Because he understands the underdog mentality, Hagen can connect with social-democratic workers as readily as with Christian fundamentalists who feel that their Christian cultural heritage is under threat.

Other subjects that mobilise the affronted population’s sense of themselves as the underdog include the FrP’s attacks on ‘politicians and bureaucrats’, its protest against schemes such as ‘the new opera being paid for by taxpayers’ and accusations that overpaid journalists are ‘persecuting the FrP’.

So where does Sarah Palin and her overwhelming ubiquity fit in all this? Like Barack Obama in 2008, Palin could prove to be a blank canvas on which citizens could project their desires en masse. Only instead of hope and change driving a national popular movement, hate and fear would be the engine of political change in 2012.

Of course, recent polls make the likelihood of a Palin run for the Presidency seem dim for the moment, as Joan Walsh notes.

But that doesn’t mean progressives should exhale:

The main reason not to fear a President Palin can be seen in recent polling among independents and moderates. In a the most current ABC News/Washington Post poll, Greg Sargent drilled down to find that: only 37 percent of independents and 30 percent of self-described moderates think she’s qualified for the presidency, and 58 percent of moderates view her unfavorably. Even more intriguing (but not surprising): Palin’s approval rating with men is higher than with women, 48 percent to 39 percent, and just a third of women believe she’d be qualified to be our first female president. (So much for Palin’s appeal to Hillary Clinton fans!)

So I think the Sarah Palin rehab tour is more about Sarah Palin Inc. than Sarah Palin 2012. She’ll rack up the speaking fees, raise some money for red-state, red-meat Republicans, further polarize the party and live the high life she thinks she deserves. Still, even as I dismiss Palin as a serious GOP threat, increasingly I believe that the faux-populism of the right is something to worry about. It may be fun to mock Sarah Palin, but Democrats shouldn’t laugh at many of the people who admire her – who see a folksy, new kind of self-made mom trying to fight the bad old Eastern elites.

Digby nails it:

I’m not saying that we should panic. These people are politically weak in their own right. But when I see the liberal gasbags on TV blithely dismissing this as if it’’s impossible that Americans could ever fall for such lunacy, I feel a little frisson of alarm. I’ve read too many accounts of people who, 80 or so years ago, complacently made the same assumption. And the whole world found out that under the right circumstances even the most civilized nations can throw in with the crazies.

Bottom line: If the ugly momentum of right-wing identity politics carries into 2012, we could see the nastiest, most polarizing Presidential campaign since 1972, regardless of who gets the GOP nomination.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

11/16/2009, Volume 015, Issue 09

The Palin Persuasion

A case for the new populism.

by Matthew Continetti

If Sarah Palin visits Nashville on her book tour, she really ought to stop by the Hermitage. Andrew Jackson's plantation is a lot more than a beautifully restored example of Greek Revival architecture and design. It's also a monument to the seventh president's democratic legacy–of rule by the people, of competitive commercial markets, of entrepreneurial individuals lighting out to the territories. It's a legacy to which Palin is heiress. And one she ought to embrace.

To be sure, by today's standards, Jackson's record is mixed. He was a slaveowner whose Indian policy was nothing less than cruel. His war on the Second Bank of the United States had some dreadful economic consequences. But, when we look at Jackson today, the positive traits stand out. More than any other politician of his era, he aligned himself with the common man against self-dealing elites. Lacking formal education, he nonetheless understood that incumbents, whether in the market or in politics, raise barriers to entry in order to protect their positions. And because he sought to unsettle those entrenched interests, Jackson was at the vanguard of a spirited popular upheaval.

The Jacksonian era was the first populist moment in American politics. But it wasn't the last. There is something about the structure of American democracy that encourages periodic upsurges in popular opinion directed at nogood-niks on the East Coast. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Democratic congressman and thrice presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan rallied his followers against agglomerations of power in New York

and Washington. In Jackson's time, the bad guys had been Nicholas Biddle, his bank, and supporters of the tariff. In Bryan's time, the bad guys were the corporate monopolists who squelched individual risk-taking and their bag-men in the legislature whose monetary and trade policies favored big business over the small farmer.

via The Palin Persuasion.

O scurta reamintire :

In primii ani ai guvernarii PSD, PSD-ul si Adrian Nastase cresteau la capitolul dorinta de vot si incredere foarte mult. Mai sa bata recordul din 20 mai 1990. Si nu sunt convins ca daca la sfarsitul lui 2002 s-ar fi facut alegeri anticipate, PSD-ul n-ar fi batut recordul FSN-ului din ’90. Dupa care, in ultimul an de mandat, increderea a scazut, incat au pierdut alegerile in marile orase. Plus fotoliul de la Cotroceni, pierdut si el.

In anul 2004, PSD_ul atragea o antipatie atat de mare incat era suficient sa inventezi si sa aduci public la adresa lui Adrian Nastase absolut orice caci erai si crezut si considerat curajos si bineinteles iubitor al dreptatii si al poporului.

Era suficient sa spui ca X este din grupul lui Hrebenciuc. Y e omul lui Cozmanca. Z s-a intalnit cu DIP. Si imediat X,Y sau Z erau vazuti ca cei mai mari nenorociti.

Ori pe o asemenea campanie electorala au castigat multi politicieni ai “dreptatii” si ai “adevarului”. In frunte cu cel care spunea ca s-au fraudat alegerile si ca nu stiu ce prim-ministrii au venit dupa tainuri. Exemplele pot continua foarte mult.

O ultima remarca : In 2004, Traian Basescu era doar o voce care isi facea campania electorala in felul asta. Dar un intreg cor il urma fidel in strtegie.

Gata cu amintirile. Sa trecem si sa vedem cum stam azi cu politica. Avem un Traian Basescu – lider absolut la capitolul incredere publica timp de 4 ani. Din 2005 pana la sfarsitul lui 2008 a fost de departe cel mai indragit politician. Fara merite fireste, dar nu despre asta mi-am propus sa vorbesc acum. De un an insa, e in cadere libere. Dar nu numai atat. Repulsia populatiei(ca sa nu zic scarba) fata de basescu e atat de mare, incat orice s-ar zice despre el sau camarila sa este crezut de populatie. Azi e suficient sa zici ca X lucreaza la firmele lui Videanu, Y e apropiat de basescu, Z se cunoaste cu Elena Udrea. Caci imediat X, Y si Z sunt demonizati.

Hm…seamana izbitor cu fostul ciclu electoral, nu?

Traian Basescu era crezut in 2004. Idolatrizat chiar prin tineret si prin marile orase. Repet, in mare parte pentru opozitia sa dura(si de cele mai multe ori mincinoasa) fata de Adrian Nastase. Dar asta ne-a facut sa avem o tara mai curata? Un sistem juridic mai drept? Mari corupti arestati? Depolitizarea? Infrastructura? Debirocratizare ? Nici vorba! Simplele critici la adresa celui ce a fost mare, dar azi e in picaj liber nu dau nici de mancare nici de baut. Aduc doar niste voturi. Adevarul e ca aduc multe voturi. Foarte ieftin si foarte usor totodata.  Ba as adauga chiar ca la indicatorii macro stam mai rau decat in 2004. Securitatea n-a fost nici pe departe demascata, legea lustratiei a cazut in derizouriu… Dar ce-i drept am avut de-a face cu un circ de zile mari la “Condamnarea comunismului”.

Cum stam cu economia? Cu nivelul de trai adica? Vom avea scadere economica de aproximativ 8%. Deficit bugetar tot cam de atat. Leul se devalorizeaza incet dar sigur, desi este sustinut de Banca Nationala. Somajul ia amploare, si este inca la inceput. Inflatia(desi nu asta ar fi teama principala) e cea mai mare din UE. Accesarea fondurilor nerambursabile de la UE tind spre zero. Exporturile scad dramatic. Importurile se prabusesc pur si simplu. Investitiile scad si ele. Incasarile la buget scad, in primul rand datorita scaderii consumului. Banii luati de la FMI au cam disparut pe salarii si pe pensii.  Dobanzile platite la 9 luni insumeaza cam un miliard de euro. Desi platim atatia bani numai pe dobanzi, statul se imprumuta din ce in ce mai des. Raiting-urile de tara raman la categoria junk, adica sub sub investment grade….. Etc, etc, etc. Si nici vorba de semnale cum ca viitorul ar suna mai bine.

Nasol, nu?

Pornesc de la ideea ca basescu va pierde alegerile(caci cu siguranta asa va fi). Deci, alegerile vor fi castigate de unul dintre contracandidatii sai. Ce mesaje ne transmit azi acestia, impreuna cu staff-urile lor? In afara de lauda cu Johannis(pe care sincer, personal nu il vad capabil sa scoata Romania din criza) ne transmit 2 mesaje :

1 – Micsorarea taxelor si a impozitelor, concomitent cu tot felul de ajutoare si subventii. Lucru care este imposibil de facut…si orice om cu capul cat de cat de umeri poate observa asta. Ba mai mult, intra la aceiasi categorie de populism ieftin ca si dansurile lui basescu si aparitiile acestuia pe Etno si pe Taraf.

2 – Atacuri la adresa lui basescu si a camarilei sale. Care repet, desi fundamentate si adevarate, nu au nici efectul de a curata societatea sau economia si nici nu ne dau de mancare sau de baut.  

Ce-ar putea in schimb sa ne dea de mancare si de baut ar fi niste programe economice bune si serioase. Niste planuri bine fundamentate care sa reuseasca sa amelioreze situatia in care ne aflam. Dar cine a venit cu asemenea planuri? Nimeni. Nici de la PNL. Nici de la PSD. Singurul politician(dar care nu este implicat in mod direct in campanie) pe care l-am auzit schitand un plan de guvernare este Dinu Patriciu. In rest nimic. Nimic in dezbaterile publice, nimic in declaratiile de presa, nimic pe bloguri. Sau ma rog, cu mici exceptii cand in afara de criticile la adresa lui basescu politicienii vin si cu idei. Si aici l-as adauga pe Adrian Nastase., care mai discuta si altcea pe blogul sau.

Asa ca, stimati liberali si pesedisti continuati sa il criticati pe basescu, continuati sa il criticati pe Berceanu, continuati sa o criticati pe duduia Udrea. Dar dupa alegeri lasati la o parte campania electorala si apucati-va de treaba.
Dar sa fiu sincer, nu prea ma astept sa va apucati. Sau de fapt, mai bine spus, cine sa se apuce de treaba? “Tehnocratii” pe care i-am vazut prin guverne in ultimii ani? Hm…

PS : Pana si in 2004, in campania electorala a Aliantei D.A. avem ca tema cota unica. Nu doar critica la adresa puterii de atunci. Acum insa…lipsa totala.