Arched Eyebrow

Of course, I'm referring to the recently late, and now eternally great, William F. Buckley, Jr.

I came to admire him late, as I have always suspected conservatives as people with not much in the way of compassion, but my suspicion denied me the pleasure of apprehending the value in a way of thinking that seems largely structurally sound. Not all of it, mind you ...

What I mean is that Buckley, one of the architects of the New Conservatism [was he a conservative or a libertarian? Depends on which day you asked him], was a post-WWII creation, a child of much privilege. Perhaps not the best fellow to ask about civil rights or the labor movement [both things helped advance our experience of civilization in profound ways that were not immediately apparent during their nascency.]

Conservatives are not good with societal change, generally. And Buckley was no exception. He was glaringly, embarrassingly wrong on civil rights. He admitted that. But be fair - he also left the American Mercury due to its anti-Semitic leanings.

To focus on his shortcomings would be to ignore the immeasurable gift he bestowed upon us all, as Americans. Long before the Watergate break-in was exposed, thus ushering in a popular skepticism of government, Buckley had advocated - forcefully and correctly, as it turned out - the same position, albeit from the right. One must credit Buckley with being appropriately concerned.

Also, the current group of anti-war drum beaters owe a debt of gratitude to Buckley. He was there first as well, arguing against involvement in illegal, expensive foreign wars under the guise of "nation-building."

And so on. One could write volumes on his correct pronouncements.

But mainly, I admired Buckley because he could construct an argument that came at you with a relentless intelligence, an unapologetic high-mindedness. He elevated the discourse in every subject he undertook to write about, and his writing about a subject made the reader take it with greater seriousness. The same cannot be said of any other current commentator that I can name.

Also, Buckley occupied a large swath of the collective cultural consciousness. In the latter half of the 20th century, one could name perhaps 10 Americans who loomed so large. Dylan. Reagan. Updike. Brando. People like that. People who mattered to us, who helped change the nature of how we think about ourselves and our culture. And when one of those people leave us, we wait, with some degree of apprehension, to see who will carry the mantle.

Second Guessing

Looking at the numbers, 12 of the 17 most populous states have had primaries or caucuses, so far. Senator Clinton has won two-thirds of those contests, some handily [states nos. 1 and 3, California and New York, some 56 million people]. Two of those states, including no. 4 [Florida] and no. 8 [Michigan] are non-factors [that's 28 million people, folks] and will effectively have no say in the candidate selection process. Both went for Clinton [again, by substantial margins.] True, Senator Obama has won a number of contests ... mainly in smaller states, southern states, a couple of majors ... Illinois, his home state. But the reality is that Senator Hillary Clinton, by an incredibly unfortunate convergence of events, will not be the nominee of the party despite having earned it.

Here is what is so odd: the coalition of states that Senator Obama has cobbled together to gain advantage over Senator Clinton closely resembles the amalgam of states that Bush used to defeat Kerry and Gore. Let's ignore New York and California, and focus on the south and the midwest. There might be some kind of irony there.

How liberal would Senator Obama be if he were elected president? I don't think we know based on his record as a senator. I think we'd be electing something of a tabla rasa, someone with neither a family tradition, or much of a relevant track record.

Here are some notes of interest about the junior Senator from Illinois: Both of Senator Obama's parents earned PhD's, his mother when she was about 50. Both his parents died young. His father was only 46, his mother was 52. He has at least 5 half-brothers and sisters [one on his mother's side, the rest on his father's side.] However, he essentially grew up as an only child.

I'm personally excited by this political season, saddened by Senator Clinton's seeming irreversible fall from popular grace, but encouraged by what seems to be a real increase in the number of people involved and engaged in politics. The rest of the race will be very interesting. Let's hope the press focuses on issues and not on tepid half-baked scandals and innuendos.

Time To Call It

Senator Obama trounced Senator Clinton in the Wisconsin primary tonight. By around 17 points. That's impressive.

Here are some of my thoughts, as it appears we are standing on the precipice of history here.

Senator Obama is the most dynamic speaker I have ever seen in a candidate. His charisma and personality are incredible. Simply put, the man is a force of nature.

Even with his incredible personal magnetism, I am at odds with the Senator.

For example, I do not favor Senator Obama's position on withdrawal from Iraq. I was opposed to the war, but do not think you can abandon the effort at this point, unless you are prepared to (a) cede the area to hostile forces, and/or allow tribal violence and potentially genocide to occur, and (b) airlift all the displaced Iraqi exiles who would like exile back to the US. Does anyone else remember the population explosion of Vietnamese [esp. in Southern California] that occured in the late 1970s and early 1980s? I do.

While I do not approve of Senator Obama's position, I am glad he is taking it because it will sharpen the debate about the war during the campaign. As will the differing views of Senators McCain and Obama on immigration [although, I believe that if they got together in private, they'd have much common ground on this issue.] And the economy. And health care.

The additional problem I have with Senator Obama is his position on business. It is naive to think that corporations exist as some sort of cash cow that can be and should be milked in order to make up for whatever class inequities exist. Unless you are prepared to accelerate the economic slowdown. It's hard enough [and dangerous] to impose large social policies on a vibrant economy. Much of the malaise of the 1970s was attributed to the "guns and butter" policies of Johnson and Nixon [coupled with the oil crisis.] Both of these factors are present now, and any aggressive social program mandate could easily place us into a lengthy recession.

So, while I do believe that he presents a very positive symbol of social change, I resist the substance of his platform. But he is a brilliant man, without question. I don't know whether that is enough at this point. Were he more moderate on the above issues, it would not be a close call. But it is not up to me. History is speaking to us, and its voice is getting louder and louder.

Post of the Day

I wrote a really long post about the immigration issue and haven't posted it yet. I need to so some more research, because unlike most of the yokels with some opinion on the issue, I want to have some facts behind me before I spout off. But don't hold your breath waiting for me to post it. I can only say that I'm happy that the 3 remaining presidential candidates are at least semi-enlightened on the topic.

I had a run-in with a consultant who is running some projects at my workplace. In short, this guy browbeat me for about 45 minutes, was completely hostile and disrespectful towards me. Even when I worked for places where it was clear I did not fit in [such as the San Jose law firm, where I would have agreed with most of their criticisms of me], I was treated with respect. This is a new low, and it is happening so late in my career. One can take nothing for granted, it seems. Even the terra firma gets a little mushy sometimes.

One of my favorites songwriters [from a notoriously dark era, the late 1970s] passed away a long time ago - 1997 - and I didn't even know it. His name was Peet Coombes. When I was about 16, a friend who managed a record store recommended the Tourists record to me ["Reality Effect"] In short, since then, I've never been without it. Such a great record. The young Annie Lennox and Dave Stewart were in that group. She would perform shows in a wedding dress. Fortunately, the songs were gimmick-free. They were mostly a power pop band, devoid of most of the excesses of the New Wave era. Sort of a less quirky Buzzcocks with female vocals and better songs.

Saw Aimee Mann live a couple of weeks ago at Vibiana, in downtown Los Angeles. The new songs are great, the hall was awful. Beautiful space, terrible acoustics. I had a good time.