His piece is worth a read. His main takeaway is that the Tea Party has asserted itself, which is actually good for public policy.

But he has some criticisms:

In short, all in all, the Shutdown makes me hopeful for the future of the Tea Party, the Republican Party and America. It showed that the Tea Party has produced a significant number of elected officials with integrity and willing to go through political fire to enact their goals, and can push the GOP in the right direction.

Now, is that all?

No. It is also true that the Tea Party promotes some bad policies like premature austerity, sometimes (let’s admit it) has a “reality problem” and very often has a tactics/strategy problem. But, the GOP Establishment also promotes some disastrous policies, and along with adding to the supply of chaff, the Tea Party has brought the best wheat the GOP has had in a very long time.

I don't know about "premature austerity." Let me note that the one large-economy Western nation which has come out rather well in this crisis is Germany, which is running a small, almost now wiped out, budget deficit, and also has fairly low unemployment.

Contrast that to everyone else, who are running high deficits and have high unemployment.

Is Germany exceptional? Or is that German policy is exceptional, but other countries could expect the same results were they to implement the same policy?

One thing that galls me -- or anyone with Tea Party tendencies -- is this uncritical, unchallenged acceptance of Herd Convetional Wisdom simply because the other members of the Herd have decided it's easiest to just not think about things and default to the Conventional Wisdom.

My sneaking suspicion is that most people who champion the Herd Conventional Wisdom only do so because other members of the Herd have done so; that is, it has become a majority position for no better reason than a majority of people believe it's the majority position.

This, I think, gets at the heart of the Tea Party's deep skepticism towards the Establishment or the Conventional Wisdom it embraces: That its positions have largely been adopted for social reasons -- conformity, of course, the paramount social consideration -- and not for intellectual, philosophical, economic, or mathematical reasons.

It's not that the Tea Party doesn't like thinking or rejects "logic" or is "crazy" or all the other epithets applied to them. It's that they strongly suspect that the Conventional Wisdom has been adopted, and is being translated into governing philosophy, for not better reason than the fact that is is Conventional. And that few in the leadership class -- which really should do a lot more thinking about things if they want credit for thinking about things -- ever examine whether the basis for this Conventional Wisdom is firm or infirm.

I think when the party is having a fight about First Principles, it is better to actually start talking about First Principles than to keep papering over the obvious disagreement. Who knows, perhaps after a real discussion of First Principles, the party could refashion some kind of a new consensus.

Posted by: Ace at 12:19 PM | Comments (282)
Post contains 537 words, total size 3 kb.

Can't argue with any of this.

As you know, I go back and forth between siding with the Tea Party and the Establishment. Ask me three times in a week, and you might get three different answers.

But while I do think the Tea Party is sometimes wrongheaded in its theory of negotiation -- that staking out the most maximalist position leads, more or less inevitably, to a better political resolution for the side staking it out -- I do fault the Establishment for not re-calibrating its politics and realizing, The base is serious about these things.

I do get tired of establishment-leaning analysts and amateur pundits telling me that I don't understand the easiest pathway to electoral success. Of course I understand the easiest pathway to electoral success -- it's dead simple.

The easiest pathway to electoral success, for someone on the right, is to stake out a position that is 1% more to the right of one's Democratic opponent. (The easiest pathway to electoral success for someone on the left is to stake out a position 1% more to the left than one's political opponent.) This gives one the maximum number of potential voters.

But potential voters are not necessarily actual voters, not if a politics seems uninspiring or pointless.

I do know the easiest pathway to electoral success -- but I, and many other people, have decided, for various reasons, that the easiest pathway is no longer acceptable, because it yields so few rewards at the governance phase.

The Democrat Party is far more responsive to constituent will. For example, when the Democrat electorate became radicalized and very, very left-leaning after the disputed election of 2000 (and then even more after 9/11 and the GOP victory of 2002), the Democrat Party quickly began adapting itself to the New Political Reality that their base was much more extreme and unwilling to compromise than it had been.

The media seems not to have noticed this, but the Democrat Party had its own Purge of the Center by the Wing -- How about Joe Lieberman? Yeah, he got primaried out, didn't he?

The primary-challenge-from-the-wing is supposedly a tool of extremists... except when the media's own party, the Democrat Party, utilizes it. Then it's just People Powered Politics (TM).

But while the Democrat Party did resist this radicalization, in the end it did become the Progressive Party, and it only took them 2-3 years to adapt themselves to this way of thinking.

Anyone hear anything from the centrist-talking Democrat Leadership Council anymore? No, you don't. The Democrats purged most of its centrists, chiefly by staking out positions so far to the Left (such as voting for the monstrosity of ObamaCare) that all of its representatives from purple districts were kicked out of office in 2010.

The Republican Establishment is, as one might guess, conservative by temperament. It resists change, moreso than the the Democrat Establishment (which almost seemed eager to confess they were fully Men and Women of the Unreconstructed Left; they just needed an excuse to say so).

The only way this marriage can be saved -- if it can be at all -- is for the Establishment to stop fighting the Tea Party on everything, and instead begin plotting politically-savvy ways to forward the Tea Party's way of thinking.

Simply calling them "wacko birds" is not going to do it, Guys.

The Tea Party tends to talk in maximalist and uncompromising terms. I do not think most Tea Partiers are actually completely maximalist and uncompromising; I believe many talk this way to increase their negotiating position vis-a-vis the establishment.

So I think it's possible that there can be some kind of compromise reached here.

But that will require that the Establishment do some compromising of its own. And that will in turn require taking the Tea Party seriously, and not simply sneering at 20% of the population as "extreme" and "fringe" and "crazy" and "wacko bird" and "Hobbits."

I think the Establishment knows more about politicking than the Tea Party. But they don't know more about core beliefs than the Tea Party. Everyone is an absolute expert in his own core beliefs, after all.

So, if this marriage is to be saved, the Establishment must begin using its political savvy -- if it has such -- to advance important political goals favored by the base.

The base understands kabuki. They are not, as the Washington Post once slurred conservative voters, "poor, uneducated, and easily led."

The Establishment may wish they were these things but they're not.

They may not be experts on politicking and messaging, but they think they're experts on What America Is and Must Be, and I'm inclined to to agree with them on that, to a large extent.

The GOP already has two huge opponents -- the Democrat Party and the Democrat Media. It cannot add a third opponent to that list.

Political realities change, and so do political goals. The Tea Party has had it to the back of their teeth with small-government rhetoric. They do not want more small government rhetoric. They want smaller government.

And they would also like respect. Despite the Washington Post's slur, I would like to point out that Tea Partiers are in fact wealthier and better-educated than the average American. It's also quite clear that they are not-so-easily led at all.

They may be willing to be led, but they want to influence their leadership in turn.

Which is the way it used to be, all those years ago, in the years after America won its democratic republic in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, it's easier for the political class if they can just call all the shots and not bother explaining themselves to mere Citizens.

And we did that for a long time. After Americans became jaded about democracy, people began tuning out of the process -- not even bothering to vote, nevermind going to a Town Hall to engage in public discourse on American policy -- and left politics, chiefly, to the politicians, for oh, about 100 years.

But that's not the reality anymore. Don't fight the new reality; embrace it. This is going to be a more participatory process whether elected officials want it to be or not. That participation will either take place before elections, in a friendly manner, or it will take place during primary season or even general election season, in a hostile manner.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (416)
Post contains 1108 words, total size 7 kb.

I usually don't like these but this one is pretty funny.

Game of Thrones is re-envisioned as an 80s style comedy, like Ski School, about a bunch of quirky kids who just want to save their beloved Medieval Theme Park and Fun-Land.

Thanks to @rdbrewer4. Actually, he gave me the Brit Hume tip too. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:39 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

If unanimous consent is had in the Senate, the Senate can skip some of the process usually required for a vote -- such as (as @gabrielmalor noted) rules about waiting three days between introduction of a bill and a vote.

Earlier Hot Air noted Kelly Ayotte complaining that Ted Cruz would have no reason to insist on a three-day wait for a fait accompli.

“It is up to him,” she said on CNN’s “New Day.” “I would hope that he wouldn’t [delay a vote]. I mean in the Senate, obviously, in terms of certain timeframes, senators can cause you to run out the clock. But what is he trying to gain at this point.”

Well, Cruz now says he won't delay.

I imagine he'll still vote against it, of course.

This is a very complicated thing because people are all over the map of this whole situation. Some actually want to bump up against the debt ceiling, believing it won't result in default. Well, I've been convinced on that, but that still permits Barack Obama to choose which of the United States' spending priorities he should honor, and which he should dishonor, and blame it on the Republicans.

People keep noting that, for example, the large category of "Welfare & Other Spending" could be cut in half in order to not run over the debt limit. True, but does anyone think Obama would cut Welfare & Other Spending? No, he'd cut the military, and scale back Social Security checks, and blame us.

For anyone who says "He could couldn't get away with that politically" -- well, just these past two weeks he's gotten away with using armed Political Police to keep veterans out of their own monuments as well as a disastrous ObamaCare rollout.

This idea that if we escalate further we win sounds, to me, like a gambler who thinks the next big bet will change his luck. Could happen, in a fair game... In a fair game, the odds of the next big bet being a winner are about 50/50.

But the game is rigged. I think the odds are more like 1%/99%.

So, there are people who want to bump up against the debt ceiling but not default; there are people who actually want to default; there are people who don't want to default or bump up the debt ceiling but have claimed they wouldn't mind doing so as an attempt, as is often done in negotiations, to effect a cavalier posture and thus compel one's opponent to make concessions; and, of course, there's most of the establishment, who never wanted to do any of this, but have done it as a bit of Conservative Politics Kabuki to convince the base that they're responsive to constituent pressure.

But we always knew -- or I knew, and I imagine you knew -- that while they were willing to engage in Kabuki for a while, they were not on board with going up against the debt ceiling.

So we knew this day was coming. Or, again, a lot of us did. The Establishment could be brought, against their will, to use the debt ceiling as leverage in negotiations, but they were always going to stop when the debt ceiling approached.

Posted by: Ace at 09:09 AM | Comments (556)
Post contains 591 words, total size 4 kb.

This is of course the daily Slumpbuster, the quickie, easy thing I stole just to get over my daily dose of writer's block.

I stole this from Instapundit. Usually I steal the slumpbuster from Hot Air, but I try to mix it up a little.

Sometimes narratives aren't just decided according to politics -- sometimes ignorance helps choose the narrative.

The press likes easy stories about Fairness and other Gut Level/Verbal things and not stories that focus on Math.

Default hysteria continues in Washington, in defiance of the most basic facts of arithmetic. Some Republicans have even been taken in, but one who is having none of it is Congressman David Schweikert of Arizona, the former treasurer of Maricopa County:

“You and I can find ways the game-playing has been done,” said Arizona Rep. David Schweikert, the former treasurer of Maricopa County. “You don’t get to have those debates and discussions if you have the administration able to game-play with the trust funds.”

Another reporter asked Schweikert to respond to some doom-saying quotes from Chinese bankers. “I lay this at the steps of the administration and Jack Lew,” said the congressman. “The unconscionable, unacceptable use of language, the word ‘default,’ when the borrowing we need for 2014 is we’re 16 percent short on revenue. To use the word ‘default,’ to scare the markets—are politics really that important to this administration that it ignores basic math?”

Schweikert ticked off ways that he, as a county treasurer, had sought balance. “The basic repo desk, running your ladders on your debt—it’s stunning that the politicians in the administration care more about keeping this as a wedge than the international markets. Even Geithner made it clear that he had the ability to prioritize…. [T]here is no such thing as default unless there is an actual evil attempt from the administration. When you have 18 percent of GDP coming in in cash, less than 2 percent going out in debt coverage—I’m stunned you all fall for it in the press. None of you were math majors, were you?”

I have something more to say about this but I'll do it in the next post. Gotta get the slumpbuster over with.

Posted by: Ace at 08:34 AM | Comments (222)
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.

Too much liability for Ace in the last one, so its going into draft. Sorry about being a hard-ass about this, but that's the way it has to be.

Entertain yourselves with some tasty FBI hate crime stats. See if you can spot some regional trends...

And thank god some of the British music never washed up on our shores in the 1960's as part of the British Invasion, or we'd have been subjected to this abomination... more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:53 AM | Comments (626)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Work got in the way this morning. You'll just have to settle for this video. more...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:38 AM | Comments (242)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Day 16.

NRO's Jonathan Strong has wrap-up for yesterday's shenanigans in the House which looked a lot like the rejection of Speaker Boehner's "Plan B" during the fiscal cliff impasse last year during the holidays. You'll recall that under Plan B, the Bush tax cuts would be extended for everyone making less than $1 million per year. Days after that was rejected for being a "tax hike," the House was forced to vote on the Senate's offer to extend the tax cuts only for everyone making less than $450k per year. Many Republicans again voted no, but the bill passed with mixed Dem and GOP support. Here's what I wrote after that little episode:

Back to the fiscal cliff, there's a lot of moaning about Republicans "paying the price" for yesterday's fiscal cliff drama, by which I mean not just the vote, but also the all-day Three Stooges routine put on by the House GOP. I don't think that's true. Most GOP members get to go back to their districts and say they voted against the plan, which will no doubt please their majority-GOP constituents. The ones that voted for the plan were already on solid ground in their more purple districts. They get to go back and say they averted tax hikes for their constituents.

Each of these two categories of Republican congressmen are going to count their actions as qualified victories when they seek reelection. So, of course, neither group has much incentive to change anything about the way they acted the next time around. Did I mention the sequester and debt ceiling debates are just around the corner?

Anyway, word is filtering out of the Senate that they'll move legislation that includes government funding through January 15, a debt ceiling hike through about February 7, a budget commission, income verification for Obamacare subsidies, and flexibility to government agencies on what to cut for sequestration. No Vitter Amendment and no medical device tax repeal or delay.

Colorado is looking at another recall petition for a gun grabbing state senator. If successful, the recall would flip control of the state senate back to the GOP. The state's Democratic governor is telling the gun control groups that poured millions into the campaigns of recalled incumbents earlier in the year to stay away.

[ RSS]

[iTunes]

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:59 AM | Comments (295)
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

Sometimes when I get bored, I do stupid, juvenile things. Like troll the Obamacare chat helpline, for example.

Here's the chat I had with Magnolia. I'd feel bad about hassling some drone over something that she has no direct control over except for the despicable smear against insurance companies that she drops in response to my complaint that my coverage has been dropped.

Think this is in their script? I do.

P.S. My name isn't Paul.
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:04 PM | Comments (524)
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

H.L. Mencken on Husbands and Bachelors

The average woman is not strategically capable of bringing down the most tempting game within her purview, and must thus content herself with a second, third, or nth choice. The only women who get their first choices are those who run in almost miraculous luck and those too stupid to formulate an ideal - two very small classes, it must be obvious. A few women, true enough, are so pertinacious that they prefer defeat to compromise. That is to say, they prefer to put off marriage indefinitely rather than to marry beneath the highest leap of their fancy. But such women may be quickly dismissed as abnormal, and perhaps as downright diseased in mind; the average woman is well aware that marriage is far better for her than celibacy, even when it falls a good deal short of her primary hopes... Thus the average woman is under none of the common masculine illusions about elective affinities, soul mates, love at first sight, and such phantasms. She is quite ready to fall in love, as the phrase is, with any man who is plainly eligible, and she usually knows a good many more such men than one. Her primary demand in marriage is not for the agonies of romance, but for comfort and security... One frequently hears of remarried widowers who continue to moon about their dead first wives, but for a remarried widow to show any such sentimentality would be a nine days' wonder. Once replaced, a dead husband is expunged from the minutes. And so is a dead love.

One of the results of all this is a subtle reinforcement of the contempt with which women normally regard their husbands - a contempt grounded, as I have shown, upon a sense of intellectual superiority. To this primary sense of superiority is now added the disparagement of a concrete comparison, and over all is an ineradicable resentment of the fact that such a comparison has been necessary. In other words, the typical husband is a second-rater, and no one is better aware of it than his wife. He is, taking averages, one who has been loved, as the saying goes, by but one woman, and then only as a second, third or nth choice. If any other woman had ever loved him, as the idiom has it, she would have married him, and so made him ineligible for his present happiness. But the average bachelor is a man who has been loved, so to speak, by many women, and is the lost first choice of at least some of them. He represents the unattainable, and hence the admirable; the husband is the attained and disdained.

Here we have a sufficient explanation of the general superiority of bachelors, so often noted by students of mankind - a superiority so marked that it is difficult, in all history, to find six first-rate philosophers who were married men. The bachelor's very capacity to avoid marriage is no more than a proof of his relative freedom from the ordinary sentimentalism of his sex - in other words, of his greater approximation to the clearheadedness of the enemy sex. He is able to defeat the enterprise of women because he brings to the business an equipment almost comparable to their own. Herbert Spencer, until he was fifty, was ferociously harassed by women of all sorts. Among others, George Eliot tried very desperately to marry him. But after he had made it plain, over a long series of years, that he was prepared to resist marriage to the full extent of his military and naval power, the girls dropped off one by one, and so his last decades were full of peace and he got a great deal of very important work done.

But no fortress can stand forever and just five years after writing this Mencken was smitten by a young Sara Haardt, the future Mrs. Mencken.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:43 PM | Comments (602)
Post contains 674 words, total size 5 kb.