Libertarians or Libertines?

David Boaz of the Cato Institute takes on folks questioning whether there can be a political alignment when self-professed conservatives so outnumber liberals in the electorate, calling the liberal/moderate/conservative spectrum a "crude and one-dimensional view of the political spectrum". Libertarians, you see, don't fit within any one of those categories; in the Cato Institute's preferred formulation libertarians are "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". Wait a second, David. Didn't you just tell us that the liberal/conservative distinction was crude and one-dimensional? How does it suddenly become more sophisticated when it is applied to the whole grand tableau of social policy? The fact is that principled libertarians do not find themselves wholly on either side of the social liberal/conservative divide. Yes, on abortion and drugs libertarians find themselves aligned against conservatives. But as Matt Barnum notes:

On the other hand, conservatives and libertarians find themselves aligned on matters such as gun control, affirmative action, political speech (i.e. campaign finance reform), environmental regulations, education policy (generally), health regulations (i.e. smoking and fatty food bans), and freedom of association.

Randall Hoven offers a libertarian's defence of social conservatism The American Thinker. Seems he's not afraid of social conservatives when he looks at the agenda of the true liberty killers, the social liberals, and their massive planned expansions of government power.

Now it's up to libertarians to decide how they're going to describe themselves. But this sally from Boaz is just another salvo in the war for the soul of the Republican Party. It's quite understandable that libertarians want to pull the GOP in their direction. And reasonable and practical libertarians are an essential part of any conservative coalition, although the true believers are too ornery to become a permanent part of anything. But why is Boaz hyping the "social liberal" tag for libertarians? Boaz blew the gaff right after the election, when he described the ideal candidate for the future as "a candidate in either party who presented himself as a product of the social freedom of the Sixties and the economic freedom of the Eighties"

Say what? Boaz is expecting the GOP not only to move in the direction of limited government, but to buy into the Zeitgeist of the Sixties. In the culture wars this is a demand not just for surrender, but surrender and betrayal. Libertarians should ask themselves if they want to hitch their wagon to leaders who want to saddle them with an attachment to a culture that is distasteful if not repugnant to people with a conservative bent, when libertarianism as such need not take any position on whether America should be more like 60s San Francisco or 50s TV sitcoms.

Libertarians absolutely have to be respected by fusionists and others as the Republicans pull themselves together and reorganize, all in the midst of what will be a bloody fight to stave off at least the worst elements of Obama's radical agenda. But there is an element of the movement that is libertine, not libertarian, and they will be sabotaging the effort to fuse the various components of the conservative coalition. Innocent flower children as they may look in their bellbottoms and granny glasses, they need to be watched.

Bennett New Deal -- Take Two

For some reason I found myself looking at the paraphernalia surrounding the ceremonies associated with the Speech from the Throne very differently than I usually do. Ordinarily, by default, I revere the elaborate playacting, the odd rituals performed by sinecure holders with archaic titles, the recitation of formulas dating from century-old conflicts between Commons and the monarch. But not today. Just for a day I experienced the anarchistic stirrings that must be felt by people I usually disdain as just being ignorant of our national heritage because they consider this mummery and mumbo-jumbo as a waste of time. Why? I think it's because I think that we're entering a period like the '30s, where economic dislocation and downward social mobility will lead to middle class discontent with the existing order that will find political expression in wild and unpredictable ways.

Why? The Conservative Party of Canada is facing what may be a critical juncture in its history. The Tories have just enjoyed the rare experience of surviving an apparent economic meltdown occurring right in the midst of an election campaign and living to tell about it. The contours of politics for decades could be shaped by the conventional-wisdom answer to this question: who was responsible for our second Great Depression, and who did something about it? Now this could go either way. If the government is perceived as having bungled its way into a modern readaptation of the Great Depression, Stephen Harper could end up being remembered as a new R. B. Bennett, a cold-hearted miser fixated with adjusting his green eyeshades while the life and hopes of the "ordinary Canadian" life swirl down the drain and we could go through another period in which the Conservatives get to form the government once every half-century or so. If the government is perceived as fighting for the ordinary Jean the Plumber and trying something, however pathetic, to alleviate his plight, it could be rewarded by a grateful electorate like F.D.R. was, no matter that the New Deal not only did not end the Depression but may have lengthened it. Maybe the present situation is too uncertain and fluid to know right now what the government can actually do to look like it's dealing with the crisis with the right mixture of competence, innovation and empathy, but we can't wait too long either.

As for the speech itself, it was pure vanilla all the way. The bland bureaucratese of the language emphasized the sham formality atmosphere of the occasion, a non-event closer to a pre-season exhibition game than a season opener. It would help that when they did come up with a decent metaphor ("As one of our greatest hockey legends has observed, we need "to skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been." ), the G-G didn't botch the delivery.

The government is getting off to the right start by throwing the balanced budget under the bus. The booster shot of a deficit, whether actually being helpful or not, is what the mediacracy, the information classes, expect, and it would be prudent to give it to them.

Was the emphasis on northern development an attempt at channelling John Diefenbaker, reprising his "Northern Vision" of 1958? I guess it's better to copy the Chief than R. B. Bennett.

Regarding empathy and concern for the ordinary Canadian, the words were there:

"Many working-age Canadians are faced with the dual pressure of holding down a job and caring for their family. Increasing numbers of Canadians are taking care of elderly parents while also raising young children. Our Government is committed to supporting working families and helping make ends meet."
But we have yet to hear the music.

Mad Jack Layton is blasting the speech as "timid". That's a charge that could stick, not yet, but eventually....Mansbridge is painting this as presenting a very bleak picture of the future, something that did not really come through as I listened. That's the right approach, though, so long as it's combined with action and optimism. The phrase to be expunged from the glossary is "the fundamentals are strong"....Dion is acceding to the inevitable and will not oppose the speech.

Next act is the economic statement next week. That's when the bell will ring and the prizefight will really begin.

Where's the Rest of Me?

So said Ronald Reagan as Drake McHugh in Kings Row, the 1942 flick that Reagan thought to be his best performance. That's what GOP leaders will be saying tomorrow morning as they awake to the biggest Democratic win since 1964. The polls all converged yesterday at McCain-Palin behind 7 points or so (or more) and his chances of winning can be estimated at 2%.

For those watching at home, Indiana closes early; with most of the state closing at 6 PM E.T. and the Democrat northwest corner at 7 P.M. If Indiana goes Democrat the race can be called for Obama-Biden right then and there; if Virginia, also closing at 7, goes Dem by more than a point or two the race will likwise be over. If these states are for McCain or close, attention will shift to the 7:30 closers, North Carolina and Ohio; McCain needs both. This race should be over by 8 P.M.

The real race tonight will be the Democrats' fight for a ‘supermajority', the 60 votes needed to break Republican filibuters. 60 isn't as much a magic number as some make out; there's no guarantee that Republicans like Arlin Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will support GOP filibusters, nor that Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson will vote to break them. But it's an important symbol of Democrat ascendency. To get to 60 the Democrats will need to beat Coleman in Minnesota, a toss-up, and upset one of Mitch McConnell in Kentucky or Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, both early closing states.

To the crystal ball:

President

Obama-Biden 353, McCain-Palin 185

Obama-Biden 52%, McCain-Palin 46%, Oth 2%

Senate

Democrat +7

Close Races -- Dems NH (defeating Sununu), NC (defeating Dole), Oregon (defeating Smith), LA (Landrieu hold)
Reps MN (Coleman), KY (McConnell), GA (Chambliss, after runoff)

House

Dem +23

I've been on a roll on American predictions; in 2006 I had the House exactly right and missed only Virginia in the Senate; in 2004 I got every state right except Iowa, the closest in the nation. I'd say I hope I am wrong this year, except that if I am, it is more likely an Obama sweep, possibly approaching 400 electoral votes than a McCain win, and Dem Senate gains of 10 or so and 30 and more than what I have predicted.

Folks can take one day, Wednesday, to digest the results and mourn; Thursday starts the battle for the soul of American conservatism, likely to be both heart- wrenching and dirty.

"Alright. I know. I'm always wrong. I always have been, ever since I can remember." --as Drake McHugh in KINGS ROW (1942).

Two Minute Drill

With 7 days left in the campaign McCain-Palin is behind by 7 points. Pundits are obsessively dissecting the red states in which the GOP is trailing and needs to catch up in order to win: Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and New Hampshire, and wondering what secret message from above has led the GOP to continue to try to steal blue Pennsylvania, despite trailing by as much as 10 points there in the polls. But there's no need to be fixated on these states. What McCain needs is a 7 or 8 point national swing; accomplish that and the swing states will follow.

Everyone with the GOP's interests at heart seems to agree that the whole McCain effort, in advertising and public appearances, must concentrate on one or two themes and no more. But there's total disagreement on what those themes should be. This late in the game you have to toss a lot of plays, plays that would be good in different situations, out of the playbook. Let's take a look at the themes that could have been fruitful that McCain has to now discard.

1. William Ayers, Unrepentant Terrorist

Contributors on places like NR Online have been screaming from the stands for McCain to hit harder Obama's associations with William Ayers, unrepentant terrorist now occupied with trying to turn the public schools into teachers of socialist revolution. Obama's judgment in allowing Ayers to host a meeting for his campaign is indeed open to question. But McCain has already hit this in the debates, to the displeasure of the wired-up "independents" in the network focus groups.

2. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Race Baiter and America Hater

Out of an excess of delicacy McCain declared Obama's inspiration, mentor and long-time pastor out of bounds. It's too late to reverse course now; it would be slammed as a desperate act of race-baiting. Personally what I found most appalling about the Obamas' participation in this congregation is his bringing his 6 and 9 year daughters to this school of America hatred and race animosity. I'm hoping that they were safely ensconced in Sunday School during the Rev. Wright's rants.

3. Joe the Plumber
The McCain people felt they had a winning issue with Joe the Plumber. Instead what they have done is expose the weakness of a tactic the Republicans have successfully employed for 30 years: Working and middle class voters accepted lower tax rates on the rich following a principle of fairness, that everybody should get the same percentage tax reduction. Joe the Plumber brought to public attention a conflicting principle of fairness: working and middle class voters do not really oppose the idea of making people who earn more than $250K paying higher percentage tax rates, when the issue is framed that way. As John Dickerson has noted McCain was 4 points ahead of Obama a month ago on being "better on taxes"; now he's 14 points behind. Invocation of Joe the Plumber has backfired.

4. Experience and Maturity
Everyone knows that McCain is old as dirt and has been in politics forever. Those who are impressed by this are already on side. Obama, like Ronald Reagan, passed the looks-like-a-president test in the debates and can't be taken down on this issue now.

5. Terrorism and Iraq
After Obama's bellicose interest in invading Pakistan was expressed in the debates, the traditional GOP edge on this issue has slipped to 6 points. But this isn't a bad issue; it's just not a major concern of the public right now.

There's two plays McCain and Palin need to use to go for the upset next Tuesday:

1. DRAW THE TERRIFYING PICTURE OF TOTAL DEMOCRATIC CONTROL

The polls do show an opening here. People do not like the idea of the absolute rule of President Obama and two Democratic houses of congress. An advantage of this tactic is that it can be accomplished without seeming to go negative on Obama personally, something that's hurt McCain severely already. The GOP needs to push in the viewing audience's faces every wild and wacky pet idea of every left winger likely to wield power in the next Congress. There's a genuine moral duty to be performed here: the electorate needs to know that an Obama presidency with a Democratic House and filibuster-proof Senate could change America in a way they may not be expecting, may not like and which may be impossible to reverse.

BTW he adjective to use on the Democrats is not "socialist", which is not quite believable and sounds desperate, nor "liberal" which no longer packs enough of a punch. The word to use is "radical", which is scary enough for the present purposes and has the advantage of being incontrovertibly true.

Oh and every GOP Senate candidate in trouble should be using this argument too, as Elizabeth Dole is doing in North Carolina and Norm Coleman is doing in Minnesota.

2. SHOW THAT ONLY JOHN MCCAIN CAN BE TRUSTED TO FIX AND MAINTAIN THE ECONOMY

The economy is the most important issue for over half the population, and those who have a preference prefer Obama over McCain by 64% to 36%. John McCain cannot win the election without turning these numbers around.

This is the tricky one, since McCain has no particular expertise on the economy and tends to do confidence-sapping things like ad libbing major economic policies in the midst of a debate. Maybe the themes of experience and proven courage can be worked in here. Maybe he wants to be more specific about what regulation of financial institutions he will recommend to the new Congress. Maybe you want to throw the Hail Mary and warn that incompetent management of the economy in 1929 turned a stock market crash into The Great Depression, and that raised taxes and imposition of tariffs are two of the mistakes that contributed to it. I see on Fox News that McCain has rolled out his economic team today. Maybe that will lead to something.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those are the plays. Go to the shotgun, call three plays at a time in the huddle, run out of bounds before being tackled, and John McCain might well cash in on his current 10% chance of winning the election.

But if McCain keeps repeating his same old themes then, as an old pal of Sen. Obama's might say, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

Ontario and Final Total Prediction

Ontario's volatility was illustrated neatly last week when Strategic Counsel produced an Ontario-only poll for the Globe and Mail and CTV showing the Tories 5 points ahead of the Grits. Wonderful! The next day they published their daily tracking poll; it showed the Grits ahead of the Tories by 6 points. The first poll had a much larger sample and was the more serious one, but it does illustrate what a roller coaster ride this has been. A column I read somewhere today recounted a day when one tracker had the Liberals ahead by 12 while another had the Conservatives ahead by 5.

One thing which must haunt the Tories (it sure haunts me) is that in the last 2 elections the latest polls overstated Conservative Ontario support by a considerable margin. My hypothesis is that this was due to the Tories being perceived as a risk, an alien party, a Western party, something they didn't feel comfortable with. People who were mad at the Liberals decided that they weren't mad enough to take this chance. If I am right the Ontario underperformance effect should not exist in this election. Love them or hate them, the Tories are now a known quantity; buyers know the product they will be getting. (Hence the Liberals' efforts to persuade people that the Tories have a "hidden agenda', a nightmare of depravity to be unleashed on an unsuspecting public as soon as they won a majority.)

The economic meltdown caused a drop in Tory support that probably put the Liberals ahead by 7 a week or so ago. There is no doubt they have recovered, the question is how much. There seems to be something of a late consensus; the Conservatives leading by 2. That is a 7 point swing from last time, and should produce a larger Tory seat margin than one would ordinarily expect because of the large number of wasted votes the Liberals amass piling up huge margins in metro Toronto. So I will go ahead and take the chance of overpredicting Ontario support for the third successive election. The distance between L and NDP support has dropped dramatically, allowing some Dipper pickups as well. The large-sample Strategic Counsel poll showed the NDP with a big lead over the Liberals in northern Ontario. If the tales of northern NDP gains are true, the Grits could be in for an unpleasant shock in Ontario.

C GAIN FROM LIB (11): BRANT, GUELPH, HALTON, HURON-BRUCE, LONDON WEST, MISSISSAUGA-ERINDALE, MISSISSAUGA SOUTH, NEWMARKET-AURORA, OAK RIDGES-MARKHAM, OAKVILLE , THORNHILL

L GAIN FROM C (1) MISSISSAUGA-STREETSVILLE (where Wajid Khan switched parties)

NDP GAIN FROM L (5): ALGOMA-MANITOULIN-KAPUSKASING, BEACHES-EAST YORK, KENORA, SUDBURY, THUNDER BAY-RAINY RIVER

NDP GAIN FROM C (1) THUNDER BAY-SUPERIOR NORTH

That all adds up to this;

%: C 36, L 34, NDP 22, G 9

SEATS: C 48, L 38, NDP 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding up it comes to this:

CANADA:

% C 35, L 28, NDP 20, BQ 10, G 7

SEATS: C 133, L 82, BQ 51, NDP 40, IND 2

Let's hope I turn out to be a pessimist. By, say, 22 seats.

In The Boonies: Predictions for Everywhere Else but Ontario

Alberta

NO CHANGE

Manitoba

ST. BONIFACE (C Gain from L) (EPP says L) Hard to imagine this riding with its solid French component leaving the Grits; but the regional C trend (+6 against the Ls), a strong C campaign, and Winnipeg Free Press polls suggest a swing here in a close race.

WINNIPEG SOUTH CENTRE (L Hold) Weak NDP campaign saves incumbent Grit minister.

Saskatchewan

NO CHANGE (Small pro-NDP trend not enough to unseat Tories in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River or Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar)

Quebec
I will not go seat-by-seat here, saving it for my sister French publication, whose name and URL I don't recall at the moment.
Before looking at the polls I had been terrified by reports of total collapse in the C vote in Quebec and a Bloc sweep of Biblical proportions. A look at the final polls from 6 sources tell a different story. You know where the Bloc are compared to their % total in 2006? Down a point. The Tories are down 4 points, that's true. (The Grits are even, with the 5 points lost by the BQ and Cs going to the NDP and G). Unless there is some strange distribution of votes where the Conservatives are increasing their vote disproportionately in ridings where they have no hope, the ominous warnings of people like Chantal Hebert that the Tories had only 2 safe seats in the province can be ignored.) I think they can be ignored, although the tendency of Quebec late trends to magnify on voting day can't be ignored.
% BQ 42 L 21 C 21 NDP 11 G 5

Seats: BQ 51 L 14 C 8 NDP 1 IND 1

Newfoundland
ST . JOHN'S EAST (NDP GAIN from C)
ST. JOHN'S SOUTH-MOUNT PEARL (L GAIN from C) Imagine that: the Grits taking a riding away from the Tories today. I guess every dog has his day.
AVALON (C Hold) Fabian manning barely holds off clean sweep for Williams' ABC campaign.

New Brunswick

NO CHANGE (Either regional trends, incumbency/repeat candidates or other factors seem to be tending to the support of every incumbent party under challenge here. FREDERICTON going C would be a pleasant surprise.)
Nova Scotia

SOUTH SHORE-ST. MARGARET'S (NDP GAIN from C) (Atlantic polls are difficult to interpret because of small samples, but the NDP should pick up another seat somewhere; I'll pick this one.)

Prince Edward Island

NO CHANGE (Only opportunity where incumbent L retiring)

NEXT: The province where all the volatility has been in the last week, Ontario.
And then we add it all up.

Fantastic Finishes? B.C. Predictions

With staggered voting times across the country we in Ontario no longer have to wait until midnight to find out what's going on in La-La-Land North. And the odds that B.C. will make a difference between the 3 possible results: C Minority (96%), C Majority (4%), and L Minority (well, closer to 0% than 1 % but still worth mentioning) are small. Nevertheless this now inaptly named province contains some of the most interesting 3-way races in the country, plus the most determinative resolution of how many Greens will opt for tactical voting to defeat the Tories as they realize they have no chance to win a seat.

The polling results here for the Conservatives have been fairly stable throughout the campaign. The Grits started out disastrously but seem to have been recovering in the last 2 weeks. That plus some good breaks have saved them from a situation seemingly possible not long ago in which they could have been wiped out entirely.

I'll note areas where the vastly overrated Election Prediction project disagrees.... Let us cut to the chase:

BRITISH COLUMBIA:

C 40 NDP 26 L 23 G 11

C 22 NDP 9 L 5

CHANGES:

ESQUIMALT-JUAN DE FUCA: C GAIN from L (EPP says L: Keith Martin to prove not as popular as he thinks; will be close)

NEWTON-NORTH DELTA:: C GAIN from L (EPP says L; with Cs appealing to the ethnic vote, no reason they should be able to resist the swing here.)

RICHMOND: C GAIN from L: (outside Vancouver and Victoria, Ls should lose the close ones)

SURREY NORTH: C GAIN FROM NDP: (Dona Cadman C candidate here)

VANCOUVER KINGSWAY: L GAIN from C: (Not a real C loss as this was David Emerson's riding; could be close L/NDP battle, late L resurgence should win it)

VANCOUVER ISLAND NORTH: C Gain from NDP: (Easy; provincial swing restores former incumbent);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTHER INTERESTING RIDINGS:

NORTH VANCOUVER: L HOLD; (EPP says C gain from L) (For the uninitiated, not the same as VANCOUVER ISLAND NORTH. (Could go C, but late L resurgence in greater Vancouver saves popular incumbent.)

SAANICH AND THE GULF ISLANDS: C HOLD (EPP says L gain from C) (The most interesting riding in the whole country. The NDP had to withdraw after exposing his platform before a bunch of teenagers — but he's still on the ballot; how many people will vote for him. The Liberal, Briony Penn is a former Green supporter who did a well known Lady Godiva routine in Vancouver a few years ago to protest some kind of cutting of forests. The Green candidate, Andrew Lewis, ran last time and got 10% of the vote, and the Greens there are reportedly bitter at Penn's defection to the Liberals. A strong campaign has been waged urging voters to vote tactically and support Penn, one effective enough to cause both the C and G candidates to lodge complaints with whoever will listen.

The key here is the assumption by some that all NDP voters realizing their candidate is out will vote L or G. That is not true anywhere, and especially in British Columbia. A significant proportion of NDP supporters have Cs as their second choice. It only needs to be as high as 25% for the Cs to hold the seat. Considering the C strength in BC, incumbent Gary Lunn, who as far as I know has never felt compelled to strip publicly for purposes either good or evil, should be able to hold on — by a margin smaller than the number of voters who cast their votes for the withdrawn NDP.


NEXT: The Prairies