The Post-2012 GOP Narrative

Journalist George Packer shares my worry about how a Romney loss in November will be interpreted by conservatives.

"To be a sane Republican today is to hope that Romney can hang on in Florida and beyond. Not simply because he’s the most “electable” candidate—parties make a mistake when they choose based on assumptions about what other people think (remember the Democrats in 2004). A sane Republican has to want Romney as nominee in order to rule out any possibility of having Gingrich as President.
But what if Romney wins the nomination and loses the election? This scenario is still the odds-on favorite. To deduce the consequences among Republican activists, let’s imagine a counter-factual from 1972: pit Nixon against Humphrey or Muskie or Jackson, a candidate imposed on the liberal Democratic base much as conservative Republicans feel Romney is being imposed on them. A Nixon win would have convinced the liberal base that the party had not been true to its core. The theology would have hardened a little more. Next time, they’d nominate a real liberal, a candidate of the grassroots.
It’s easy to picture hard-core Republicans coming to the same conclusion: Romney and the party élite betrayed the party’s principles (again, after McCain) and gave the country four more years of the hated Obama. Never again! Next time, a real conservative!

A Gingrich rout in November might have the same effect on Republicans—it might drive their party back toward the center, and toward mental health, in 2016. But if Romney wins the nomination and loses the election, the party will continue down into the same dark hole where Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Santorum, and now Gingrich all lurk."

State Of The Blog 2012

"A hushed silence has come over the assembled crowd, as the Emperor Dungy makes his way through the rank and file of the Army and Guard delegates. And I've gotta say, Ted, we couldn't have asked for a more beautiful day. Don't you agree?"

"Oh, absolutely, Dan. The clouds over our capital are, of course, a perpetual jet black, but they've been uncharacteristically dry today, and many are interpreting that as a good omen."

"Mmhmm. During our coverage of this morning's traditional Emperor's Day Expulsion of the Albinos from the Holy City, the examined entrails of the final victim were said to be the cleanest seen in many years."

"Yup. As the Emperor makes his way up the Stairs of Mourning, the delegation from the Senate can be seen nominating a leader by lot to give the Invocation today."

"Chuck, can you go back to camera two? Yeah, as the Emperor comes into frame, just look at the detail on what he's wearing."

"Gorgeous. In keeping with tradition, the Emperor is wearing the Mantle of the Annointed for today's speech."

"Yeah, and it's rare to see it up close. It's kept under lock and key all year long, but today, through the miracle of broadcast, we can bring it to you, the viewer."

"Take a look at the elaborate decoration, Dan. Originally a large burlap sack used to dispatch the last remnants of the old political system, the mantle has received an ever increasing number of alterations and new ostentation. Today, we can see emeralds, rubies, and of course, many diamonds and gold inlays."

"That and the holes, of course."

"Of course, the fifty-seven holes, through which the fifty-seven traitors received the ultimate justice. Ah, the Emperor has completed his climb, and the representative of the Senate approaches the Imperial Dais to give the Invocation..."

"Salutations. Today, my peers have granted me the... The privilege of delivering to the people the Holy Invocation of our Beloved Leader...

In the name of our ancestors, may my blood be upon you. In the name of the motherland, may my blood keep and preserve you. And... Oh, God... May the blood of my children... keep and preserve... our most Beloved Emperor Dunglemagne the First. For a thousand year reign!"

"And he's off! The guards are exiting to pursue, and what a runner they've chosen this year, Ted. In keeping with tradition, the Emperor has pledged to open the granaries to all if he's butchered before reaching the city walls. His Grace approaches the Dais..."

Comrades. It is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the next rainy season! And remember, a shiny new donkey for whomever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya...

What? Oh yes, by that, I of course mean that it's time for this year's State Of The Blog...

It's been a little over a year since my good friend, friend-of-the-blog-John-Stegeman started his own writing project, thereby encouraging me to write, as a means to bludgeon him and inflate my own ego. Er, I mean "Express myself". And it has been a good year. We've covered a lot of ground, yelled a lot of words, and done a lot of stuff on things.

But we must keep going, ever upward. That's why I'm announcing Dungy-Blog 2012's 12 month plan! For a more prosperous blogging future.

First initiative: More Contributors
Our mutual acquaitance, Matt Kilmer started his own blog last year and is contributing more and more frequently. Three blogs starting in a year is a fair amount of progress, but we must expand. More voices. Well, more worthy voices. I propose we do whatever it takes to make this Triumvirate into a Tetrarchy by the end of this year.

I ask this, not to enhance our prestige with more attention, but to enhance the conversation with more points-of-view. I would like to see a Christian (maybe a protestant to balance things out), but I'd settle for anyone with an interesting voice and the will to contribute.

Also: Try to be less of a jerk
I'm beginning to believe that sometimes I cross a line of smarminess in my pursuit of John The Catholic. I believe that my points are usually valid (or validish), and my motives are generally good, and I certainly don't think I'm being too venomous. But, there may be times where I'm greatly motivated by being a combative contrarian. And that's not healthy.

I should be motivated by trying to express the truth (or at least just my point on a subject), but I do get a kick out of just trying to "win", and too often I'm doing it "for the kicks". I've found it to be usually true that one should never base one's identity on a negative. That is, don't define yourself by what you're "against". The Constitution doesn't describe the government of the US in terms of opposition to Facism or Communism. Instead it describes the system on it's own terms. So be it with this blog. I'll still write "Against [blank]" blogs, but I want to try to write a few more "For [blank]" blogs. That would be a step in the right direction.

Better Writing Style
Last year's "Breaking My Friend, John" was my first experience writing something that felt totally fleshed out and clean. I didn't write recreationally much before then (there were a few blogs from 2009 as a kind of first attempt, a fledgling killer's first effort at transformation), and it was the first time it felt really good to write. Writing that one was easy, because I had a lot of pent up creative energy that was ready to come out. But as it went on, that fire burned a little less brightly. I'm putting up a lot of energy to keep a steady stream of ideas coming out of here, and I've reached a pretty stable level, now.

My problem is that I'm not putting the same effort into quality. I'm usually publishing my first draft, and I often don't review or tweak it before publishing. I should be able to point to progress in this area. So, for 2012 I want to put a renewed emphasis on writing that is thoughtful, but also well written. The late Christopher Hitchens was a joy to read, no matter what he was writing on. I can't hope to reach that level, but I'd like to create something that gives a fraction of that same feeling.

So, with that in mind I make this pledge: In 2012, I will write one "good blog" per month. For these I will do at least one rough draft. If I have difficulty thinking of a topic, maybe we can do another blog event? Something to consider.

Final Pledge: More Topical, Culturally Relevant Humor. Less Abstract Kookiness.

Isn't that right, Cactus Chef Playing We Didn't Start The Fire On The Flute?

That's it folks. Thanks to John and Matt for being the only people to read this, and for their constant input to "Our Conversation". That reminds me, can we change Our Conversation to "Our Thing"? Because, in Italian it's "Cosa Nostra". Which is both cool, and neat.

Here's to a terrific 2012 and more heated debate.

NOW VOLK RISE UP AND STORM BREAK LOOSE!

"The cheers of the crowd, and discharge of firearms is almost deafening as the Emperor leaves the dais! Truly an awe inspiring, if characteristically cryptic, speech. Wouldn't you agree, Ted?"

"Absolutely, one can never totally comprehend the -"

"Oh, gotta cut you off there, Ted. I'm receiving word that the Guard Captain has returned with the head! Yes, we can see it there. Oh, wait. His Grace is dipping the head in signal. Once. Twice. Three times - the signal for a fete! A FETE! DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES? The granaries are opened, and DOWN ROLLS THE HEAD! Rolling down the Stairs of Mourning!"

"Absolutely stunning! A wave of ravenous, barefooted children is dispersing onto the city streets as the fete commences! Tonight, we eat! And I don't know about you Dan, but I'm not sticking around for the post-speech analysis..."

Congrats To Mitt II

Or not. The networks are projecting that Gingrich has won South Carolina. Hoorah for the victory of not-mitt.

I don't even care that it's Gingrich. If Gingrich were to get the nomination, at least it would be an interesting contest. I don't buy the B.S. about Newt being a superior debater, a clever intellectual and that. But at least we could watch pure, immoral lies and creepy dirtiness instead of watch Mitt pretend to believe whatever stuff that he thinks >50% of Americans and want to hear.

Next stop: Florida, Jan 30th. I don't pretend to know who will win it. We'll just have to watch the polls and see who dangles enough shineys to capture the attention of the polling electorate during the next couple of weeks. I'm really rooting for Paul to distinguish himself from the rest of the jokesters, though.

Congrats to Mitt

According to... well, almost everyone at this point - Romney has the nomination well in hand.

Polling seems to indicate he's got a healthy lead in South Carolina, and Florida to boot.

Perry apparently will not quit. Paul is all about advancing his libertarian ideals, so he won't quit either. Nor should he, since he's showing himself to be consistently the next strongest (must not write "#2"). I believe that Gingrich will stick around for as long as he can, if only to continue throwing molotov cocktails at Romney. Santorum is already significantly weakened (no surprise to anyone there) since his near-victory in Iowa.

Huntsman is, well, irrelevant.

I could easily see this unfolding as a three way race between Romney (for the "establishment"), Santorum (religious right), and Paul (libertarians), with Romney dominating because of his "electability", despite the fact that hardly anyone seems to like him much.

What I would like to see is as many also-ran candidates to step out now, so their voters will have time to think about which non-Romney-who-could-also-win they'll back. I have no doubt that Romney will go into super tuesday with the frontrunner status, but I'd like to see Ron Paul get the bump, so he can be seen as a viable alternative (if not "last man standing") on super tuesday.

Otherwise, this is just going to pan out as Romney mopping up state after state. A victory for play-it-safe, passionless, heartless, gutless politics.

Against Faith

You awake and find yourself alone in the woods, with no memory of how you arrived there. In fact, you have no memory of your past at all. You could have been living there for years, or recently been moved there against your will. You have no relevant survival skills. You do not know how to judge direction by sun or stars. You do not know how to track game. The woods are vast, seemingly without end. You walk for several hours in one direction to find yourself no closer to an exit into civilization. Then you recognize footprints in the mud. The prints match your own shoes: you've been walking in circles. You're hungry and cold. You feel that your situation is hopeless, and with all probability you won't survive more than a few days. You're afraid.

How would you cope? It's probably fair to concede than many would allow themselves to lapse into despair, and more or less await the inevitable. However, I believe that many more would eventually summon the courage to keep trying, learning as much as they can about their surroundings and trying to muddle their way through the situation and find a way out of the woods, or at least find food, fresh water and shelter, so they can continue the struggle.

One thing that hope none of us would do: deny the reality of the situation. Simply because we have no knowledge of life before the woods - or present knowledge of a way out - does not imply that this is an illusion. As great as the human capacity for denial is, I doubt any of us would believe that if we sit in the dirt and focus on a warm house, cable TV and a pepperoni pizza, we can make that a reality through force of will.

Well, you can see where this is going. The setting of the woods is our life on earth. The struggle for survival is our own spiritual struggle. I mean this not in a mystical sense, but in an ethical an metaphysical sense. Being born into this place and time means we have full bellies and warm beds. But we still struggle to find meaning, fulfillment and a understanding of truth, goodness and badness, rightness and wrongness in our daily lives.

My thesis is this: In as much as these concepts aren't readily apparent or easy, the reaction of turning to faith for answers is wrong. Not just unwise, but wrong.

In my judgement, the first thing one must accept is the existence of physical reality. In order to do so, one must accept the basic correctness of ones own perceptions. As fallible as they are, one must trust one's own eyes, ears, sense of feeling and touch, and one's own mind. With these basic assumptions acting as a foundation, a super-structure of theories about ethics, metaphysics and philosophy (not to mention scientific knowledge of the physical world) is possible. Without them, a person is capable of any wild, random action. They could lapse into solipsism, believing that theirs is the only real experience, and that it means nothing to shoot a thousand people in the face. They could choose to ape the behavior of others, without really accepting social mores, becoming a narcissist or sociopath. Etc, etc.

Faith is, in essence, preferring one type of knowledge (gnosis: spiritual or revelatory knowledge) over another (material knowledge). It doesn't necessarily deny the reality of material knowledge, but it insists that gnosis take precedence when there is a conflict. That doesn't mean that a believer is a dangerous sociopath (for the most part), but it means that the "foundation" has been compromised.

My own understanding derives entirely from sensory information, and any rational correlations my mind might derive from that information. To a believer, that material data has competition, from a "higher power": another source that is both apart and above the physical world. In the case of one who believes he himself is a prophet, with direct access to gnosis, the wrongness of his faith will become immediately apparent when he tries to sleep with your wife and start building a holy army (see Joseph Smith). In the case of one who merely has faith in the words of dead prophets, the wrongness will be less obvious, but still there. Dead crazy is more inert than living crazy, but the possibility for unreasonable action is still there. If scripture has anything at all to say about current events, it probably will provoke believers to take actions that they wouldn't otherwise take.

Everything that we have in this world - an understanding of how the universe works, how to efficiently grow food, how to live and work with each other, how to organize a society with laws and courts, how to build a roof that doesn't collapse and kill the family living within - we owe to rational, clear thinking. Faith is a corruption of that. Faith is an appeal, a deference, a yielding - a surrender - to the not-rational. At the bottom, faith is the insistence that by concentrating on an idea, with enough will-power, one is capable of making reality - that if you focus your Chi hard enough, you can make that lightsaber leap off of the ground and into your hand.

For what? What does the believer gain? Quite a lot, I must admit: A sense of purpose, fulfillment, moral certainty and comfort in an afterlife. These are the "higher values" that one seeks after finding food, shelter, a mate, and security. These are the values that rationality alone has difficulty providing in the long run. Faith makes it easier. But Faith has many hands, and while it gives with one, it takes with all others. The cost of comfort is the loss of an ability to judge for oneself, challenge assumptions, and hold opinions outside of orthodoxy.

Other than that, I do believe it actually erodes one's capacity to think critically. If one spends a portion of his life training to ignore or suppress doubts or judgements that are rooted in materialism, during a religious frame of mind, that cannot but have a deleterious effect on the ability to return to that more rational method of thinking when the situation demands it. When trying to parse and understand an essay written by a theological scholar, I cannot help but be boggled by how complex and nonsensical it is. It reads that way because the arguments aren't rooted in a common, tangible world that we all share, but in a supernatural world that cannot be explained without ridiculously convoluted analogies and parable, and even then, poorly.

Faith in general, especially organized religion, and in particular Abrahamic religions cripple the minds of human beings by training them to turn off a critical part of their brains. It says, basically: "You are, as of the moment you were born, scum that has no right to breath air or live freely - no rights at all, as a matter of fact. Despite this, you may be given some of the things that you want if you freely give yourself up. Give up your free judgement, give up your autonomy, be totally obedient in thought and action and you will be given the comforts you desire in return".

Say what you want about the limits of pure reason. If one reviews the works of philosophy from Socrates onward, and you'll see the arguments, counter-arguments, refutations, revisiting and reviewing of ideas long abandoned, affirming, denying, affirming and denying again - the footprints crossing each other in the woods, circling the path again and again. But progress is being made. Today we know more about the world than we ever did before. We know more about our past - and our potential future - than ever before. We're living better than ever before. We're treating each other with more decency than ever before. In spite of the limitations of reason, and the difficulty of living in this universe, we are managing. We're muddling through, to the best of our ability. And I have reason to hope that the trend will continue. Tomorrow means better knowledge of fact, truth and value. Better perspective, a better life. But every moment spent in belief of the supernatural is a moment squandered. A few minutes in the woods, pausing to try one more time to will that house/TV/pizza into reality is a moment not looking for real food, real safety. Beyond that, the demands of obedience from faith put our real achievements in jeopardy by causing random, irrational, dangerous and, yes, immoral behavior. That is why when I say that I am an agnostic - I reject gnosis - it is not with a shrug but with resoluteness and confidence.

Who Won Iowa?

Santorum, I think. For Romney, a win by 8 votes is hardly a win at all. Romney may still end up taking the nomination, but the public need for some (any) Not-Romney candidate is stacking one humiliation after another on Mitt's back. His ambition must be bottomless to keep going after 3/4 of right leaning people have clearly shown that they don't want him, don't need him, don't like him.

So, Bachmann is out. Her votes will go to Santorum. Perry is (most likely) out, his votes will probably help Mitt more than anyone else. Gingrich stays in, for now.

It's important to point out that Santorum's recent surge is entirely thanks to timing. Focus turned to him at the last minute, and he got a well timed boost. He, his past and his positions have not yet been scrutinized like Gingrich/Cain/Perry/Bachmann, so he may lose a lotta starch once that blowback hits. He won't place high in New Hampshire, though, so his next best bet is South Carolina.

Paul may do well in NH, but I have no clue how SC will swing. I know that Huntsman has bet everything on NH, and is polling well there. If he wins NH outright, he'll get some focus, but anything less than 1st place won't be good enough. If he doesn't win there, I expect him to drop out.

Overall - I wouldn't bet on Santorum lasting for long, especially in super tuesday or open primary states. He's way, way too socially conservative (read: theocrat). I see this shaping up over the next couple of weeks as Paul/Romney/Gingrich. If it boils down to Romney and Paul, I think that would look extremely good for Ron Paul. But I dunno if that'll happen. Either Gingrich or Santorum will stick around to give the crazies someone to vote for.

Mahalo.