Democratic pollster Peter Hart has interviewed thousands of voters from every ideological perspective and reports on a powerful, nearly unanimous longing for a unifying candidate—a president who can tame bitter partisanship in Washington and get Republicans and Democrats to cooperate.  

This deep-seated, widely-held desire is actually bad news for the front runners in both major parties: no figure in American politics is more divisive, more polarizing than Hillary Clinton, and the combative Rudy Giuliani will have a tough time unifying the GOP, let alone the nation at large.  

The yearning for consensus-building and a constructive tone may benefit more soothing, less edgy candidates—like Barack Obama on the Democratic side, and Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee among Republicans. In addition to mobilizing activists on the left or the right, viable contenders should begin thinking about assembling a broad consensus and ultimately bringing the nation together at a time of terrorist and economic threat.

The  Mid-East Peace Conference in Annapolis stands little chance of success due to obviously contradictory demands by the Palestinians.

They insist, for instance, on a so-called “Right of Return”—authorizing millions of grandchildren and great-grandchildren of one-time refugees to claim homes they’ve never seen in Israel. At the same time, they demand that Israel dismantle long-established Jewish communities in the future state of Palestine.  

They expect Israel to accommodate unlimited numbers of Palestinians in its territory while simultaneously refusing to accept any Jewish residents in the potential Palestine. In effect, they’re pushing for two homelands, not just one: claiming both Israel and the future Palestine as refuges for their dispersed people. Israelis will accept the right of unlimited numbers of Palestinians to settle in a Palestinian state—that’s the whole idea of establishing the new nation. But they’ll never agree to the simultaneous right of millions of hostile Arabs to swamp the state of Israel.

 

In a recent column, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Jr. unwittingly exposed the vast ideological gap between Republicans and Democrats.

 

Dionne chose to praise Maryland’s new Democratic governor Martin O’Malley for a massive tax increase designed to close the state’s $1.7 billion budget deficit. Hailing O’Malley’s decision as “government for grownups” the columnist noted that the liberal Democrat “led the Maryland legislature to approve $1.4 billion in taxes and $550 million in spending cuts. It has been a long time since we’ve seen that kind of balance from the federal government.”

 

Say what?

 

Does Dionne honestly believe that spending cuts of $550 million actually balance tax increases that are nearly three times as large? Is a revenue-raising plan that’s 72% tax hikes, and 28% spending trims, in any real sense “balanced”?

 

Dionne goes on to note that O’Malley raised the income tax rate for top wage earners from 4.75 percent to 5.5 percent – a hefty increase of some 16%. To him, this represents “a modest step in the right direction.”

 

E.J. Dionne clearly wishes that Governor O’Malley had gone even further than he did in boosting taxes, and not relied on placing 15,000 new slot machines around the state to produce additional revenue, but he still clearly celebrates the liberal leader’s initiative: “The sound you are hearing not only in Maryland but in state capitals across the nation,” he writes, “is the crashing and crumbling of ideology, specifically a right-wing ideology that demonizes taxes and government….”

 

Actually, conservatives don’t “demonize” taxes and government, but honestly acknowledge that whatever worthy goals tax hikes might fund, they mean less money in the hands of the people who earned it.

 

Republicans believe that individual earners can make better decisions about spending their own money than bureaucrats who seize it. Democrats like Dionne maintain an unshakable faith in the superior wisdom of government officials and the political class to spend the people’s hard-earned gains.

 

This remains the permanent, fundamental difference between the two parties – an undeniable distinction that means more than all other arguments about social issues, the cost of health care, immigration, or time-tables for Iraq withdrawal.

 

Those who believe that it shows admirable “balance” to close a yawning deficit by raising tax rates, or who consider a 16% rise in top rates a “modest step in the right direction,” or who believe that the desire for reduced tax burdens and less intrusive government amount to unjustified “demonization,” will no doubt vote Democratic in the next election.

 

Those, on the other hand, who reject these assumptions and find Dionne’s column unintentionally revealing, must stick with the GOP and its consistently tax-averse candidates – regardless of their innumerable foibles and shortcomings on a host of other issues. If we hope to avoid a repeat of the Maryland model on the national stage, conservatives must rally behind Republican candidates who can win – for the House, the Senate and, above all, the White House.

 

 

In the midst of their feverish fight for the presidency, politicians love to decry the “war on the middle class” and suggest that ordinary Americans face bitter hard-times. In this context, it’s ironic that the Democrats most recently debated in Las Vegas – which draws more than 39 million visitors a year, 87% of them American. Most of these Sin City thrill-seekers are solidly middle class; only 24% boast household income above $100,000. Yet they manage to spend an average per trip of $652 on gambling, $261 on food and drink, and $141 on shows. Meanwhile, even more Americans—45 million – visit Orlando and its theme parks in a year, and those mostly Disney-bound tourists boast an average household income of $73,000. Sure, the middle class feels pinched with the scary price of gas, medical care and college tuition, but considering our ongoing investment in pricey vacations or regular restaurant meals, some of the whining may be inappropriate.

The Thanksgiving holiday provides an opportunity to refocus on the motivations of early New England settlers, who crossed the ocean not to escape the Old World, but to change it by the force of their example. For Pilgrims in Plymouth, or their Puritan neighbors in Massachusetts Bay, the idea of a “city on a hill” was to create an ideal society that the corrupt world would be forced to admire and, ultimately, emulate it. In the fine new book “Dangerous Nation,” Robert Kagan makes clear that the drive to bring justice and democracy to the rest of the world didn’t begin with “neo-cons,” or even with Woodrow Wilson. It began with our New England forefathers, and it’s always been a motivating force in America’s international role.  Among many reasons to feel grateful to New England’s founders on this Thanksgiving, we can appreciate them as originators of the idea of our nation’s special, even sacred, mission in the world.

Most commentary about the recent Democratic debate focused on Hillary Clinton and her stronger, more self-assured performance. But the truly alarming aspect of that exchange involved the unanimous position of all candidates in preemptively opposing military action against Iran. They say they want to use the power of diplomacy to stop Iran from going nuclear, but their strident denunciation of any sort of American strike gives the Iranians much less reason to negotiate. The Democrats seem to worry less about Ahmadinejad getting nuclear weapons, than they do about President Bush taking decisive action to stop the development of those weapons. Senator Joe Biden even said he’d push for impeachment if the president launched a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities without a prior vote from Congress. Before the Iraq war, Bush sought such a vote and Biden, Clinton, and Edwards all voted for it. For partisan reasons, Democrats now undermine our Iran policy at a delicate and dangerous time.

Are voters ready to get behind a Presidential candidate whose undergraduate degree is from Ouachita Baptist University? Republican insiders face that question because of the powerful surge in Iowa for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

Four of our last six Presidents held Yale degrees; if Hillary wins, that makes five Yalies out of seven. Skeptics say Huckabee’s hurt by his background as the first male in family history ever to graduate from high school, and by the “hillbilly” sound of his name. But polls show a good chance for Huckabee to win an upset victory in Iowa, and if he does, the underdog factor will work powerfully to his advantage. The internet, and sudden press attention, can make him instantly competitive across the country. And concerning his educational background, he did graduate “magna cum laude” in just two-and-a-half years.

One of our other non-Yale recent presidents was Ronald Reagan, whose degree from Eureka College didn’t stop his two landslide victories.

Brian de Palma’s new movie “Redacted” (released in a handful of theatres this weekend) is a loathsome, crude, amateurish and grotesque assault on our troops in Iraq, offering a make-believe documentary about a half-dozen Marines who viciously rape and murder a fourteen year old girl and simultaneously slaughter her family. The movie also takes a snide, incidental swipe at talk radio, featuring a fat, loud-mouthed ring leader of the rapists identified only as “Rush.” The worst part of the film, beyond the clumsy acting and sloppy script, involves its portrayal of a simple, two-dimensional conflict in Iraq: the only violence on screen pits brutal Americans against oppressed Iraqis, who react with justified rage and determination in resisting the sadistic, sex-mad Yankee invaders. Nowhere does DePalma indicate that the chief victims of the so-called insurgents aren’t US forces, but Iraqi civilians. All reputable sources show Iraqi terrorists taking the lives of far more of their countrymen then American troops have claimed, and there’s no sane basis to expect that this murderous rampage will magically cease once our soldiers come home. The idea that the US remains in Iraq in order to torment and dominate Iraqis – rather than to protect innocent civilians from the monstrous cruelty of Islamo-Nazi killers – remains one of the big lies of the anti-war movement. That lie has received odious cinematic expression with “Redacted” – a wretched, irresponsible film that richly deserves the public rejection it will, inevitably, receive.

With Americans worried over the price of gas, the foreclosure crisis, Islamo-Nazi terror, Democratic tax-and-spend policies, global warming, the shrinking dollar and Britney Spears’ parenting skills, it’s hard to whip up too much hysteria about the writers strike in Hollyweird. Nevertheless, as a long time (but inactive) member of the WGA (“Writers Guild of America”) I feel honor-bound to make some comment about this famous labor stoppage. Moreover, savvy observers should be able to pick up a few significant lessons from the picket lines in Beverly Hills.

 

1)      MANY OF YOUR FAVORITE T.V. STARS AREN’T NEARLY AS CLEVER AS YOU BELIEVED THEM TO BE. The fact that the absence of writers forces talk shows like Jay Leno and Jon Stewart into re-runs must come as a revelation. When major stars, famed for their witty repartee, agree to shut down production because their writers refuse to work, it indicates an unhealthy (and embarrassing) dependence on other people to put words into their mouths.

2)      THE CULT OF VICTIMIZATION HAS DRIVEN HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS CRAZY. Most Americans feel envious of screen-writers: they work at a job anyone would cherish and some of them make big money. Nevertheless, the Gucci crowd manning (or personing)  the picket lines in Glitter Gulch clearly wants to identify with abused and impoverished working men in the Great Depression or the Third World. In this context, rhetoric about “oppression” and “exploitation” sounds ridiculous – as do references to “bosses” and “workers.” Instead of taking pride in their success and creative achievements, they choose to identify with humble, downtrodden, powerless losers who can find salvation only in their union. This sense that someone is always taking advantage of you—that despite all the trappings of privilege, you’ve been perpetually gypped – is an essential element in the worldview of Tinseltown radicals.

3)      YES, THERE IS LIFE AFTER TELEVISION. According to all reports, viewers feel annoyed by this strike, rejecting the re-runs and reality shows offered as replacements for their suspended favorite series. This experience may benefit America at large, even while it damages the entertainment industry. The average American watches TV nearly thirty hours each week, but the writers strike should help break that destructive, distracting habit for many disgruntled consumers. If this interruption in our standard television addiction helps ordinary citizens watch less of the Boob tube then the writers and producers may both lose in the strike, but the American people will come out as the big winners.

 

On November 12^th, America’s most prestigious newspaper offered an alarming indication of its priorities in covering the ongoing struggle in Iraq. A front-page article in the New York Times announced: “SECURITY GUARD KILLS IRAQI DRIVER: Eyewitnesses Say Taxi Posed No Threat.” Readers had to dig deep inside the paper, however, before they found an account (on Page A8) of announcements by the Iraqi government and US military officials about dramatically reduced violence. Suicide attacks, car bombings and other terrorist attacks fell 77 percent in Baghdad since this time last year, and thousands of displaced families have begun to return. Moreover, Major General Rick Lynch, commander of US forces south of the capital, told the press that he believes the decrease in violence will hold—but the New York Times altogether ignored his words. General Lynch cited the 26,000 Iraqis recruited in his own area of command to help target militants. “If we didn’t have so many people coming forward to help, I’d think this is a flash in the pan. But that’s just not the case,” he declared. The Times not only failed to report this aspect of the story, or to feature any of the good news on the front page, but also chose to highlight the case of a single taxi driver allegedly shot by an American contractor. No wonder that the courageous Joe Lieberman commented last week about those who “have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving.” The newspaper that exists to publish “All the News That’s Fit to Print” might consider a revised slogan: “All the Bad News that Fits, We Print.”

Tom Tancredo has run an angry, mean-spirited presidential campaign, trying to foment national hysteria over illegal immigration. The embarrassing failure of his candidacy proves that public attitudes on this issue are more complex and conflicted than Tancredo’s single-minded hostility.

In Iowa, Tancredo spent more money than any other candidate except Romney, and visited the state more than 20 times—more than all rivals except Romney and Huckabee. But for all this time and money, he registers only 1 percent in Iowa polls, with similarly insignificant showings in all other states.

Tancredo spent more than three times the Iowa money as Huckabee, but the former Arkansas governor—a relative moderate on immigration—draws 19 times Tancredo’s support. The failure of Tancredo’s ranting demagoguery is good for the GOP, encouraging realistic approaches to border security and dealing with millions of illegals already here. His recently announced retirement from Congress also signals new chances to move beyond slogans and rage toward constructive debate.

Governor Mike Huckabee derserves the current surge in his presidential campaign, but he ought to drop a phrase that’s raised needless controversy. Several times, Huckabee described the 40 million American abortions since Roe v. Wade as a “holocaust,” a characterization that hurts the pro-life cause.

In Hitler’s Holocaust, the government committed murder; since Roe, our government has, at worst, permitted murder. The government didn’t kill those babies: doctors and mothers did, with more than 25 percent of American women over 21 admitting to at least one abortion. Comparing these women to Auschwitz killers won’t help win their support for the cause of human life.

For those who organized and operated Hitler’s gas chambers, death would have been an appropriate fate, but should a responsible leader imply that abortion providers and women who’ve gotten abortions similarly deserve to die? Huckabee should drop the ill-considered analogy, which also troubles Jews and all others who lost relatives in the Holocaust.

The recent debate of Democratic Presidential candidates featured a disastrous performance by front-runner Hillary Clinton. She gave conflicting, equivocal answers to every question she faced—waffling on Iraq, Iran, taxes, social security, drivers licenses for illegals, and even the prospect of opening her own papers at the National Archives.

To mitigate the damage, aides appealed for sympathy based on gender—portraying Hillary as one defenseless woman with ten hostile men, including NBC moderators, ganging up on her. This approach raises painful questions: if Hillary can’t stand up to Tim Russert, how is she supposed to stand up to Vladimir Putin—especially since Russert doesn’t have nuclear weapons behind him? If she buckles and doubletalks facing John Edwards, how will she confront Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez?

Her weakness gives Republicans a great opportunity if they hone their ability to answer tough questions directly and unequivocally—giving America the straight talk that they’re certainly not getting from Senator Clinton.

A new AP-Ipsos Survey says that 34% of Americans believe in ghosts, and some 23% of us say we’ve personally encountered such spirits. (For a description of my own still inexplicable ghostly encounter at 3 AM on the Gettysburg battlefield, see “Lesson 9” from RIGHT TURNS, but that’s another story). Whether or not you take such accounts seriously, the moody, elegant 2001 chiller THE OTHERS will appeal even to skeptics with its uncomfortable tale of a British country home that may or may not be occupied by restless spirits. It’s 1945 and Nicole Kidman clings to her two small children with a ferocity bordering on obsession, while she waits for the return of her soldier husband from the war. To deal with the drafty, shadowy and remote mansion, she hires three elderly and pointedly peculiar servants (Fionnula Flanagan, Elaine Cassidy and Eric Sykes) who may secretly serve some supernatural agenda. Without grotesque special effects or graphic horrors, Spanish writer-director Alejandro Amenabar expertly builds the tension in this clammy, claustrophobic environment while Kidman’s tightly-wound, edge-of-hysteria performance creates real doubt as to her character’s sanity. The surprise twist at the conclusion of the story makes perfect sense, but will leave most viewers more disturbed than satisfied. The PG-13 rating seems appropriate for a ghoulish tale that relies on hints and shadows rather than cheap or splashy frights to assault its audience.