The Blame Game

I have nothing interesting to say about the John Mark Karr frenzy, and less interest in actually saying, or listening to anything more about it.

However, Kevin Drum has a post worth taking a look at as we are tempted to blame the media for subjecting us to this story for the past week.

Keeping a mirror handy is always a good rule of thumb when playing the blame game.

Ignoring Local Voices

Highly recommended piece from The Onion this week:

"Sometimes I Feel Like I'm The Only One Trying To Gentrify This Neighborhood"

Money quote:

I've tried being proactive. But none of the locals I've talked to about bringing in a co-op health-food grocery store have seemed excited at all. Nor have I gotten any of them to take part in my community open-house idea for hip young people to come see what this neighborhood is capable of. What did they do instead? They had a barbecue. With very loud music.

I mean, I don't want the people here to leave. I just want them to stay inside more. Especially if they're not going to do anything to bring this community to life. But they're always out on their stoops, just playing dominoes or talking. I like talking, but I do it inside, where it was meant to be done. It makes me uncomfortable to have people watching me all the time. Not that I think they'd do anything, but I just like to be a little more private.

This is actually a really sharp example of how "community change" efforts happen in cases where even people with the best intentions fail to take into account the value and power of local voices.

Watch Out for Apathy

An article entitled “Political Ignorance Revisited” by Professor Steven Earl Bennet was examined by Steve Winship (and came to my attention by way of Matthew Yglesias) after appearing in the new online journal Public Opinion Pros, which deals, unsurprisingly, with issues and methodology in public opinion.

Overall the piece is a familiar lament of the ignorance of the American issues regarding issues of public policy and knowledge of public figures, especially among the young. Bennet goes as far to state that the young’s “apathy and political ignorance do not bode well for the future of democracy.”

What troubles me most when I read studies and finding like this is not the ignorance of the public about politics and public issues (though admittedly the numbers can seem a bit grim), but rather the tremendous ignorance of public opinion professionals, political operatives, and politicians themselves about the public.

Take for example the following passage:

The 2004 ANES (American National Election Study) also showed that strong partisans, intense ideologues, and, especially, those who are very interested in politics are much more informed than their opposites, even when other factors affecting information are considered. But attachment to parties has weakened, most Americans are not ideologues, and many are apathetic.

It’s obviously no surprise that people who are interested in something tend to know more about it than those who aren’t interested, but in an era where we are constantly reminded how polarized we are, is it any surprise that those who inhabit those poles tend to feel most connected to politics?

Attachment to parties has weakened, that’s true, but so has attachment to various other civic and community organizations, as writings by Robert Putnam and Theda Skopol suggest. What we are witnessing is not simply a turning away from the public issues, but from the very notion of the public.

Which brings me to the idea of apathy. To suggest that apathy plays a role in people’s ignorance of the major political issues of the day is to suggest that people don’t care about the education of their children, their ability to receive health care, or their own personal security or well being. Anyone who has spent any amount of time listening to their friends and neighbors knows that people are concerned about these things – they may not dwell on them obsessively, but they certainly have concerns and opinions.

There is a growing body of qualitative research that has been spearheaded by my former colleagues at The Harwood Institute, and supported in large part by the Kettering Foundation, that shows that people do care deeply about these issues, but they are unable to see how the political debates of the day and the rhetoric deployed by political leaders relate to their concerns. (A good primer on the evolution of these attitudes over the past 15 years can be found in the book Hope Unraveled: The People’s Retreat and Our Way Back). Rather than apathy, anger, lament, or, in some cases quiet resignation would be more apt descriptions.

We can see a glimmer of recognition of the fundamental disconnect between the personal and public dimensions of these issues toward the conclusion of the article, when Bennett is discussing James Fishkin’s proposed “deliberative polls” as a remedy for both apathy and ignorance.

The 2004 ANES found, for example, that persons who reported discussing politics with family and friends were significantly better informed than those who eschewed political talk.

Anyone who is familiar with how people talk about public issues (pollsters a rule aren’t because they usually elicit responses, not discussion) know that when people talk about their friends and family about local education issues, for instance, they don’t usually see it as political talk. I would think because of that the number of people who self-reported talking about politics is much lower than the number of people who actually discuss public issues, which are undeniably political, with their family and friends.

Surely, people need to take responsibility for knowing about public issues and how they are affected by them. Such understanding strengthens our democracy and the health of our political process. It is misguided to think that “the public” is alone responsible. The media tends to cover partisanship rather than public issues, reporting on the inside baseball of politics rather than the implications of policy, and political leaders too rarely ground their rhetoric in a reality that resonates with the personal concerns that people face every day. Until we all start reconciling personal concerns with public issues, we will continue to fall further away from any sort of coherent public discourse and we will continue to breed the anger and frustration that is so often labeled “apathy”.

So, does anyone have any suggestions for how we get back on the right path?

Independents and the "Mushy Middle"

In response to my post on political moderates, Rich Harwood writes

... I do believe that moderates fail themselves -- and thus the public --
in their inability to articulate a values-based vision of their views; to tap
into and exhibit passion; to stand tall and make an arugment for moving in a
particular direction.

Here I think it is useful to draw a distinction between moderates and independents. In my original post the basic point that I was trying to make is that we often conflate independents and moderates when talking about American politics. Such is the temptation in a two-party system to lump everyone who doesn't fit neatly into either party into a third-party "other" designation. in doing this, however, we lose much of the nuance that is the hallmark of political independents.

Rich's comments, when applied to everyone who doesn't consider themselves to be part of one political party or the other, seem a bit unfair. Rich's comments apply mostly to what could be called "the mushy middle" - those who don't particularily care enough to fully form or articulate a position on an issue - even issues that deeply affect their daily lives.

But, and I think Rich would agree with me, there is a large number of people who do have clear views on an variety of issues, feel strongly about them, but don't see the totality of their views reflected in either party. These are the independents. Often, they feel pressure to fall in line with one political party or the other because of expediency and the desire to see some of their beliefs carried through in policy. As polarization of the political elites grows more intense, these are the people who are going to be the first to depart. Unlike members of "the mushy middle" who would be content to vote a party line if it didn't require them to think or invest too much, independents be more likely to take the stance that they're "mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore."

How independents respond to the polarization of the elites is going to be one of the most important trends to watch in the upcoming election cycles. Whether they choose to stand by their party of choice, form a new coalition party, or opt of the process altogether could have a profound impact on the state of politics and public life in the coming years.

Opting out is the most potentially damaging option, forcing more people into the retreat that Rich himself has chronicled in his work, though as far as I know he hasn't written too much about the varying stripes of people that make up the center, or whether he sees much of a distinction between moderates and independents.

To my eye, though it can be easy to conflate the two, when we're thinking about change, we should be looking to the independents - not the moderates.

Snakes on Public Life

I found myself at an 11:40pm showing of Snakes on Plane last Friday, after months of anticipation and hype. I enjoyed the movie a great deal, and literally felt as though I was on a thrill ride for much of it. But I don't really want to talk about the merits of the movie, but what, if anything the buzz surrounding the movie tells us about the state of public life.

For those unfamiliar with the cultural phenomenon that is (was?) Snakes on a Plane, a brief primer. About a year ago, word got out that Samuel L. Jackson was starring in the aforementioned film, which sparked a flurry of activity online, spearheaded by Snakes on a Blog. People joined in on the frenzy for a variety of reasons, some were devotees of Mr. Jackson's body of work (and ability to drop a mean f-bomb), others reveled in the directness of the title. still others latched on with the morbid fascination that draws people to train wrecks.

Through online communities, people created their Snakes on a Plane posters, some even created trailers for the movie using snake footage and sound-alike actors. Often, movies need to kick start this kind of "viral" marketing (think of The Blair Witch Project blanketing college campuses with teaser ads before the movie came out), but New Line Pictures didn't have anything to do with the explosion of publicity. It was the closest thing to a grassroots effort we have seen in quite some time.

The online community created their own culture around the movie - even developing their own mythology, with movie hero Jackson stepping in to save the day in real life. The story goes that Samuel L. Jackson accepted the role after just reading the title of the movie, and, when New Line considered changing the name to Pacific Air Flight 121, Jackson led the revolt that preserved "Snakes on a Plane" for the public. Regardless of how true these accounts actually are, they have become reality as Jackson has repeated them as he's done the press junket for the film.

What cannot be denied is the impact that the online community had on the film itself. We can debate whether or not the netroots defeated Joe Lieberman in the CT primary, but there is no doubt that they had an impact on Snakes on Plane. Some members of the cast were brought back for a 5 day reshoot to increase the violence, sex, and profanity in the movie to attain an R rather than PG-13 rating. Included in the reshooting was the now infamous line expressing Mr. Jackson's frustration with the situation on the plane, a line that originally appeared in a fanmade movie trailer using a sound-alike voice actor. Of course, in interviews Jackson has claimed credit for inciting the online community to demand a more "hardcore" Snakes on a Plane.

Too often in public life, we see people attempting to "grow" the grassroots rather than cultivating roots that have already taken hold. Authentic grassroots activism, as we've seen in this case, can get results, but in order to accomplish its goal three keys must be in place. First, the activism must be authentically grassroots, and springing from a wide variety of sources with a common cause, not from top-down organizing. Secondly, the organization being influenced must recognize and respect the power that is held by the grassroots group (In this case, New Line recognized that these activists were their target audience). And finally, the organization being influenced must have both the ability and the desire to adopt the changes or cause being advocated by the group.

While New Lines' desire to keep it's fan base happy and cash in on free advertising is apparent in this model, it's easy to see how this model can break down when you move outside the commercial arena. In politics, for instance, there is a breakdown in the first and second keys - "grassroots" campaigns are often contrived and inauthentic, or made of too narrow a base of support, and because of that public officials do not respect their power. To some extent there is also a breakdown in the third key, as people increasingly become frustrated that their elected officials aren't actually able to make any sort of substantive change.

But the question still remains, what can inspire such an outpouring of support in public life? I believe a piece of the puzzle does lie in the Snakes on a Plane phenomenon. What you have with Snakes on a Plane is a direct, honest, clear message. What you see is what you get. There is no pseudo-mystery of "Pacific Air Flight 121" it just comes out and says what it offers. That's what people responded to. People are so used to being manipulated, sneered at, and pandered to, that there is a real desire for honesty throughout public life. If something as trivial as Snakes on a Plane can tap into this void, just imagine what a national public figure who tried it could achieve.

Funny Business

I’ve been reminded a lot recently about the importance of humor in one’s personal life. For me it’s always been an easy way to defuse a potentially tense situation, liven up an excruciating meeting, or simply get a reaction out of someone. While this type of humor can be an antidote to a distressing situation, humor in public life is often more like a stick of dynamite. It can be useful, but it must be handled carefully.

In the wake of September 11^th, the death of irony was declared in the same breath as the rebirth of patriotism. Two weeks later, The Onion ran the headline “American Life Turns into Bad Jerry Bruckheimer Movie.” Thankfully, irony and humor were still alive and well. Humor can help us make through even the darkest days, both in our private and our public lives. As the Pope said in an interview this week, “I'm not a man who constantly thinks up jokes. But I think it's very important to be able to see the funny side of life and its joyful dimension and not to take everything too tragically.”

As I see it there are three distinct types of humor that most often come into play in public life: communal humor (we’re all laughing together), self deprecation (you’re laughing with me), and ridicule (you’re laughing with me at someone else). There is space for all three, but before any of them should be attempted, you had better be sure you know which one you’re striving for.

Communal humor is probably the most benign of these three. Think of this as telling a joke at the beginning of a speech or presentation to break the ice, get the audience laughing and relaxed. Communal humor is also found at public performances, including theater and film, where you get to share laughter with a group of strangers. Of course, as anyone who has ever performed knows, comedy is hard to pull off, so even communal humor should be handled with care. Those with highly attuned senses of humor often venture in the second type of humor, self-deprecation, when attempting to break the ice.

Self-deprecation is one of the most effective types of humor in the political arena. It humanizes political leaders, and connects them to whatever audience they are trying to reach. In recent years, Ronald Reagan was the standard-bearer for self-deprecation, using it effortlessly to great effect. Self-deprecation is so powerful because it demonstrates one of the most important (and rare) qualities of a leader – humility. A willingness to laugh at one's self, and in the process admit one’s shortcomings, can both defuse criticism and show honesty.

Finally, there is ridicule. By ridicule, I do not mean simply being mean or insulting to someone else, but rather using humor to expose faults in the logic of an opponents argument, or expose hypocrisy. Despite my desire to see issues-based campaigns that are free from ad-hominem attacks, I believe that ridicule of this kind does have a place in public life. One of the most memorable uses of ridicule in the public arena was the late Lloyd Bensen’s quip that Dan Quayle was “no Jack Kennedy.” Obviously, this is a bit of a fine line, that same year Texas Governor Anne Richards brought down the house at the Democratic National Convention by saying that George Bush was “Born with a silver foot in his mouth.” I would say this extended beyond the bounds of ridicule and was simply an attack, no matter how big of a laugh it got.

Which brings me to Senator George Allen of Virginia. By now I’m sure many of you are aware that the during a campaign appearance in southern Virginia, Allen pointed out S.R. Sidarth, who was videotaping the appearance on behalf of Allen’s opponent Jim Webb. He called Sidarth, who is Indian-American, “macaca” and welcomed him to “America and the real world of Virginia”. You can see the video here.

Clearly, Allen was going for a moment of communal humor, but ended up venturing into the realm of ridicule, falling short and ending up in that abyss where failed jokes go die. Only, in Allen’s case this failed attempt at humor has come back to haunt him in a big way. Initially, no one was quite sure what to make the “macaca” comment, but everyone seemed to sense that it “sounded vaguely racist.” The origins of this word have been traced back to a type of monkey (which accompanied most initial reports), to the fact that it is a slur used to refer to native north Africans by Europeans (Allen’s mother is from Tunisia), to an explanation that the word is a mash-up of “Mohawk” and “caca” (you all can do the math on that one). Allen eventually apologized, not necessarily for the comment itself, but to anyone who was offended by the media’s misinterpretation of his comment.

Of course, the irony here is that Allen has now opened himself up for some genuine ridicule for this remark. Leaving aside the question of whether the remark was racist, Allen (who was born in California) welcoming Sidarth (who is a native Virginian) to Virginia is certainly grounds for some arrows of ridicule to be slung his way.

The Daily Show is the most well known purveyor of such ridicule, and its sharp wit has thrust host Jon Stewart into the political spotlight. Stewart’s humor flies in the face of the “fair and balanced” news media, who often are so concerned about appearing biased that they temper any criticism of a particular party with the assertion that the other side is in some way guilty as well. He surely has a liberal bent to his personal politics, but in his humor he looks for the best laugh regardless of party. The Daily Show’s send ups of the politics of sound bites is some of the sharpest coverage I've seen of partisanship over the past few years – lining up dozens of spokespeople repeating the same lines word for word on the Sunday talk shows, or the subtle change in the language of Iraq war supporters from “Stay the course” to “Adapt and win.” When Stewart is at his best, he doesn't actually make jokes, he simply sets the stage and let the clips speak for themselves.

Stewart succeeds because he tempers his ridicule with a healthy dose of self-deprecation, and reaches for our common frustrations with political leaders in an effort to create some communal humor out of the partisan divide. In the battle to reclaim a healthy public life, this is a valuable weapon, and hopefully through the common places of humor, well used, we can start laughing more and more with each other rather than simply at others.

A Moderating Force?

I just wanted to point our two posts about the CT primary that were posted yesterday. Rich Harwood, as always, does an excellent job of tying last week's primary to the larger political arc of the last decade and a half. I know Rich appreciates comments as much as I do, so if you want to respond, please feel free.

Peter Levine also has a great post on Moderation, and whether that's what we strive for in American Democracy. The concept of the "centrist" is something that really hits at the heart of American Democracy, as most citizens tend to think of themselves as middle of the road (of course, who really sees themselves as extremists?). One of the main problems I see with how we define "moderates" is that it usually involves some sort of linear arithmetic rather than a complete picture of the political leader.

For instance, if someone is a supporter of the Iraq War, for Universal Healthcare, in favor of social security privatization (or whatever that's being called this week), and pro-choice it's likely that person would be termed a moderate, even if they strongly held each of those views. We see two "conservative" positions, add to that two "liberal" positions, and decide that that person must be a "moderate." It's a politics on a sliding scale that ignores the values that underlie a person's position and paint a much clearer picture of the candidates as an individual. Of course, it's much easier to see (and write about) candidates that are caricatures of the "typical" members of their party rather than to tease out the nuances of their various positions and value system.

For the media, "moderate" becomes a label for anyone who doesn't cleanly conform to our preconceived narrative of Red-Blue division. Lieberman certainly transcended our traditional notions of Red and Blue, and for that he has my respect, but despite moderating his position on some issues when running for the Vice Presidency (such as school vouchers) I would never mistake him for a moderate.

At least I'm not the only one

Joel Stein at Time.com offers his take on the Sierra Mist spot here.

He doesn't really address any of the issues that I raised, but does say that Sierra Mist had planned to stop airing the ad as of last Sunday, but that some cable companies are still running it through Tuesday. Hard to say if this is a genuine fact, or a retroactive decision on the part of PepsiCo. Either way, they clearly aren't concerned that the content of the ad is going to spark a large scale outrage among the public.

Maybe it is apathy

Not really a deep post, but I'm putting it out there anyway.

I am curious what people think about the fact that this ad was still airing as of last night? I caught it during the Daily Show, but I assume it was running other places as well.

Is it healthy that we aren't concerned with the trivial in our response to the threat of terrorism, or are we really lulling ourselves into complacency?

(For those without the ability or patience to watch the video, the ad is one of Sierra Mist's Super Bowl spots from last year that features Kathy Griffen as an airport screener who keeps making buzzing noises as she wands over Michael Ian Black's bottle of Sierra Mist at a security checkpoint)

Our first thoughts

Whenever one turns on the television first thing in the morning to find a "Breaking News" banner across the bottom of the screen there is a moment panic. With the conflict in the Middle East unfolding hourly, and the overuse of "Breaking News" logos by many networks fighting for marketshare it's easy to doubt how "breaking" the news actually is most of the time. But for a network to post such a bulletin this far from prime time, you know it has to be serious. Such was the case with the 7/7 London bombings, and such was the case this morning.

With more facts emerging it appears likely that this plot was real, and the potential results were terrible. Surely we are all thankful that the news we woke up to this morning was about arrests and not civilian airliners exploding over the Atlantic.

But what were your thoughts when you first heard the news, or saw that "Breaking News" banner crawling along the bottom of the screen?

I am sorry to say that my first thought was not "Thank God no one was hurt," but rather "Thank God I don't have to fly anywhere this weekend". Following hard upon that bit of self-centered relief was a dull sense of dread and a simple question, "How are political leaders going to use this?"

My first response had nothing do with terrorism, but rather my own desire not to be inconvineced and my frustration with political rhetoric in general, and specifically regarding the war on terror. (In my own defense after I settled in and got the facts relatively straight, I immediately thought of reading this article a while ago, which was published but is no longer available on womenswallstreet.com. If you're curious, the snopes page about this article is here)

Am I guilty of some kind of "terror apathy", only caring about terrorism after an attack rather than after an attack is thwarted, staying warmly ensconced in my false sense of security? While I certainly would have had a much different reaction had the news been of an attack, I still care about terrorism, even though my first responses this morning were of a more selfish nature. I recognize the danger that terrorism poses to me, especially living in the DC metro area, and certainly care about the risks it poses to my family and friends. I would say that makes me far from apathetic.

Upon closer inspection, I think my apparant "apathy" stems from a fundamental shift in how I look at the threat of terrorism. As i see it, terrorism is no longer primarily the tool of the terrorists designed to topple the American regime and force radical Islam onto the West, but rather the tool of political leaders to score points and claim the national security high ground in an election year (and it's always an election year in this day and age). So, for me this morning the thought of what this news was going to mean in the political arena trumped the idea that 10 planes could have been brought down and hundreds of people killed.

When looking at the larger picture, I don't feel that my response was so unjustified. No matter how many planes terrorists bring down, or how many bombs they detonate, the American Republic will stand. Even a nuclear blast in a major metropolitan area, a tragedy surely, would not topple the United States.

In contrast, the corrosiveness of the rhetoric surrounding the war on terror - especially the use of fear as a political bludgeon does pose a direct threat to the country as it prevents a real and robust debate on the best way to secure our homeland from ever occuring. The true threat of terrorism does not come from without, but from within, and it is a threat that is being fanned by the partisan hackery that passes for political discourse. Tolerating demagoguery only leads to more demagogues, and demagogues are antithetical to the ideals upon which our founding principles rest.

I’m not sure where we can step in to break the current cycle, but I’m certainly open to suggestions.

So what is this anyway?

I was reluctant to make the Lieberman post my first foray into actual substance for a number of reasons. The first being that I have deeply ambivilant feelings about it. On the one hand I respect the voters of Connecticut and their ability to choose their representatives, on the other hand I think Senator Lieberman has been an exemplar of the kind of politician that we need to put our country on the right course. I have disagreed strongly with his stances on a variety of issues, but I still hold him in high regard. Hopefully my thoughts will become more clear in the coming weeks so I can provide a more coherent analysis of the situation.

The second is because I don't necessarily want this to be a "political" blog. By it's nature, it will deal with political issues, as all of the most imporant public issues we face have a political dimension, but I don't want to be limited to that.

So what is this if not a "political" blog? Blogs are inherently"public" spaces, able to be viewed by all. However, very few are "civic" spaces. Communitites have formed around sites like Daily Kos and TPM Cafe with users generating content, but the fact that community exists does not necessarily make the spaces "civic". The notion of what is "civic" transcends political acts and goes to the heart of what it means to be a citizen.

Too often we view our citizenship as limited to our actions in the political areana, whether we vote or not is the be all and end all of citizenship. Upon more careful relfection, we may add paying taxes to our list of "civic duties". I will certainly wrestle with the political dimension of citizenship, but I also want to address questions of how our citizenship and civic life is impacted by art, culture, and fundementally by each other.

There are a few examples of "civic" spaces in the blogosphere. A couple of my favorites come from Peter Levine of the University of Maryland and Richard Harwood of The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. I've added links to some news sources, blogs, and organizations that I think are worth taking a look at. I welcome suggestions for additions to the list.

With that, I leave you to contemplate what citizenship means to you, and what aspects are most important to your civic life. I look forward to sharing my own explorations of these questions with you, and hearing what you encounter on your own civic journey.

Battling for the soul of the Democratic Party (Or Not)

(D)-day finally arrived in Connecticut yesterday, and pundits have wasted no time in making predictions about what the Lieberman loss and ensuing independent run means for the Democratic Party, the upcoming elections, and the fate of the country as a whole.

• National Review assembles a distinguished group of commentators that engage in a theme and variation on "cut and run"
  
• Josh Marshall dismisses the "net-roots" theory of Lieberman's defeat in favor of old-fashioned political discontent, complete with a warning to other incumbents (particularly Republicans) to take notice.
  
• Andrew Sullivan takes a wait and see approach.
  

Marshall and Sullivan seem to be on the right track here. I really wish I could have found something worth praising in the NR pieces because their writing is usually very insightful, but the pieces all seem to echo the conventional wisdom about Democrats that has become the centerpiece of recent Republican campaigns. For example, NRO's own Mona Charin adds this:

He never represented a wing of the Democratic party. He had no noticeable influence upon his colleagues. The Democratic party is what it is — a foolish, demagogic, head-in-the-sand, appeasing party. Nothing that happens in Connecticut will affect that very much.

While I agree that nothing that happened in Connecticut will affect very much on a large scale, painting the rejection of Lieberman as some sort of "appeasement" is a gross distortion of the root cause of Lieberman's downfall - Lieberman himself.

During the Clinton impeachment Lieberman was hailed as the "conscience of the Democratic party" and has always been a poster child for Democrats' acceptance of people of faith. To my eye, it seems as though Lieberman embraced these distinctions and took them to an extreme conclusion - that he was morally superior not just to the party as a whole, but to the Democratic voters in Connecticut. Feelings of superiority don't sit well with invividuals who are made to feel inferior, but perhaps Lieberman will now be free to turn that moral superiority on a system seen as morally bankrupt by those same voters he alienated.

In his "concession" speech, Lieberman decried the fact that, "the old politics of partisan polarization won today," and vowed to fight against those forces as an independent candidate. I am anxious to see what tone his campaign takes in what is sure to be a heated contest. If he can truly tap into people's frustration with partisanship and political gamesmanship, I believe he has a good chance at reclaiming his Senate seat. However, in a race as contentious and heated as this is sure to be, living up to that lofty goal will be a tall order.

Lieberman has shown himself to be a good man, and a decent, principled, public servant. Those principles led to decisions and positions that did not sit well with Democratic primary voters. That is often the price you pay for being principled. I'm anxious to see if Lieberman has the courage to stick to his principles in the general election. If he does, and he wins, that will have implications more far reaching than any primary defeat.

The Last Refuge of the Scoundrel, or the Last Full Measure of Devotion?

Welcome to The Civic Patriot. I hope that this blog will provide the last refuge for all the scoundrels out there who still believe in the power of authentic patriotism to keep our nation strong and our democracy healthy. Comments will always be appreciated, and disagreements welcome.