The Dems should count themselves lucky that the Bush team is devoid imagination or wit, native and otherwise. Under normal circumstances, the incumbent would be seeking to anoint his successor. Replacing the irascible and ailing veep is not possible this time, however (leaving aside the question of who'd be running the country if Cheney stepped down), because the desired candidate is the president's brother Jeb. Even the Republicans know it would be unseemly to run siblings simultaneously for the top jobs.
Senator John McCain offers the perfect solution. Extremely popular with the independent voter who has been chosen to decide this election, he would enhance the GOP's likelihood of being returned to office; too old to run himself in 2008, he wouldn't get in the way of restoring primogeniture as a factor in succession at the next turn of the election wheel. John Edwards' most obvious advantages would be neutralized if he wound up debating Grandpa Walton instead of Darth Vader.
Fortunately for Kerry and Edwards (and the nation), the Bush Leaguers are too mired in their ways to contemplate a Bush-McCain ticket. Even if it becomes necessary to replace Cheney, whether for health reasons (it's damp and drafty down in that bunker) or because he is indicted in one Halliburton mess -- Iran, Nigeria -- or another, and even if the royalists follow the same logic pursuant to Jeb's inheritance, they'll necessarily elevate some presentable but undistinguished backbencher -- Orin Hatch would fit the bill nicely -- to keep the seat warm.
We'll be told that Bush and McCain don't like each other. But personal enmity rarely stands in the path of victory. Did Jack like Lyndon? Did Dick want to hang with Spiro? Did Ford (what the heck was his first name anyway) care for Nelson? Did Ronnie have any respect for George? Nah. But McCain is another story. The senator won't be selected not because he and Junior don't get along but because he is perceived by the Bush team as outside the box, and outside the box is not a place they like to be.
The country dodged one bullet when McCain turned down Kerry's offer of the vice presidency, a move that had it succeeded might have reassured a few independents but would have further irritated many in his already itchy base. It will dodge another when the Republicans reject an opportunity to make their ticket stronger by picking McCain.
Wanted -- A Republican Nader
While Republican pundits and apparatchiks* make gleeful sport of the opposition for venturing another presidential campaign with an independent progressive poised to nip off with the margin of victory, many Democrats are not entirely unhappy to have an alternative at hand should their nominee tack too far to the right in the name of electability.
Ralph Nader stands ready as a reminder to John Kerry that a passionate embrace of corporatism may not be what every Democrat expects of the party's champion. It can be hoped that the sight of Nader's admonitory finger will be a sufficient brake on Kerry's apparent eagerness to trade favors for contributions.
Democrats unfazed by Nader's quixotics argue that there is little risk from his candidacy. No Democrat will vote for the consumer advocate, they believe, if so doing might result in four more years of Bush and Cheney. They have a point: though he may be as inspiring as one of those 508 varieties of American dirt on the endangered list (and what, by the way, is he proposing to do about that?), and though there may be an issue or two in which he is not quite in step with his party, Kerry is in no danger, as apparently Al Gore was, of being mistaken for the cozener currently garrisoned in the Oval Office. If we have nothing else to thank George Bush for, at least we can be grateful that his presidency has had the effect of putting to rest forever the contention that all politicians are created equal.
On the other hand, Nader's self-serving argument that third party candidates draw mainly from the incumbent party's vote doesn't hold water. The happy circumstance of Ross Perot's siphoning ballots away from Bush I in 1992 will not be repeated this year, the more so without a charismatic like Bill Clinton on the Democratic line. And, while he is correct in saying that many conservatives are dissatisfied with Bush and might look favorably on a suitable replacement, Nader is being disingenuous to suggest that he is it.
Republicans need a Ralph Nader of their own.
It's not as though conservatives don't have plenty of reasons to be unhappy with Bush. From the Medicare drug "giveaway" through "reform" of agricultural policy to amnesty for illegal aliens and "No Child's Left Behind" -- to say nothing of the Mother of All Deficits, there is plenty to rue for Republicans young or old. What better way to keep the president from straying too far from GOP scripture than to provide the party's fundamentalist base with a palatable alternative. The intention of such a candidacy will not be to defeat the president, of course, any more than Nader really wishes to help elect him; rather the purpose will be to inject the fear of, well, God into him, or at least the fear that the party faithful will transfer their allegiance to a different shepherd should the president's sermons become too larded with heretical celebrations of diversity and compassion.
The Republican Party was once the roost of birds who wished to be both Right and right. A Democrat, used to watching his leaders accommodate power, could envy the conservatives their commitment to principle. Even now, despite the outward display of unity, you suspect that only by the imposition of Prussian discipline on reactionary backbenchers and neocon intellectuals does the White House keep a challenger from rising from their midst.
Who might this paladin be? In truth, there are plenty of choices. It is forty years since the Right began systematically training intellectual gunslingers behind the ramparts of Cato and Free Enterprise and sending them in posses to hunt down and string up any candidate of either party who expresses doubt that protecting the power and profits of big corporations is the lord's work. And while you or I might find it vexing to be forced to choose one Republican we prefer above all others, surely those who have accepted Alan Greenspan into their hearts would jump at the chance to anoint a pastor more eloquent than the president at preaching the gospel of limited government and an unfettered marketplace. Four years ago, did you imagine missing Allan Keyes and Gary Bauer? And where is Patrick Buchanan when he might finally serve a purpose?
Taxing though it may be to audition possible alternatives to Bush, it is a job that must be done if the Right is not to lose ground to centrist promises during the campaign. If it didn't seem so obvious, an outsider wishing to be helpful might be moved to offer a suggestion: Rush Limbaugh.
The talk show host is the ideal casting on the right for the role Ralph Nader is so ably filling on the left. Like Nader, Limbaugh would be taken just seriously enough along the party's margins to keep the leading candidate in some kind of check without attracting a single vote from the undecided and moderate middle that will choose the next president. Again like Nader, Limbaugh has no stature or position within the party to lose; he is not a Bill Frist, say, or a Tom DeLay, who, however much they covet the job, know they would risk their already considerable influence over policy if they were to make a grab for the presidency at the wrong moment. Finally, and alas unlike Ralph Nader, when preaching to the choir Rush Limbaugh is a forceful and articulate spokesman for the positions he advocates.
Would he do it? After his drug bust, the talk show host could use a little rehabilitation; "former presidential candidate" makes a more positive resume item than "former drug-abuser" or "ex-con." Besides, if Rush Limbaugh won't die for our sins, by golly who will?
* Although, pace A.Coulter et al, is that better rendered apparatchicks?
Ralph Nader stands ready as a reminder to John Kerry that a passionate embrace of corporatism may not be what every Democrat expects of the party's champion. It can be hoped that the sight of Nader's admonitory finger will be a sufficient brake on Kerry's apparent eagerness to trade favors for contributions.
Democrats unfazed by Nader's quixotics argue that there is little risk from his candidacy. No Democrat will vote for the consumer advocate, they believe, if so doing might result in four more years of Bush and Cheney. They have a point: though he may be as inspiring as one of those 508 varieties of American dirt on the endangered list (and what, by the way, is he proposing to do about that?), and though there may be an issue or two in which he is not quite in step with his party, Kerry is in no danger, as apparently Al Gore was, of being mistaken for the cozener currently garrisoned in the Oval Office. If we have nothing else to thank George Bush for, at least we can be grateful that his presidency has had the effect of putting to rest forever the contention that all politicians are created equal.
On the other hand, Nader's self-serving argument that third party candidates draw mainly from the incumbent party's vote doesn't hold water. The happy circumstance of Ross Perot's siphoning ballots away from Bush I in 1992 will not be repeated this year, the more so without a charismatic like Bill Clinton on the Democratic line. And, while he is correct in saying that many conservatives are dissatisfied with Bush and might look favorably on a suitable replacement, Nader is being disingenuous to suggest that he is it.
Republicans need a Ralph Nader of their own.
It's not as though conservatives don't have plenty of reasons to be unhappy with Bush. From the Medicare drug "giveaway" through "reform" of agricultural policy to amnesty for illegal aliens and "No Child's Left Behind" -- to say nothing of the Mother of All Deficits, there is plenty to rue for Republicans young or old. What better way to keep the president from straying too far from GOP scripture than to provide the party's fundamentalist base with a palatable alternative. The intention of such a candidacy will not be to defeat the president, of course, any more than Nader really wishes to help elect him; rather the purpose will be to inject the fear of, well, God into him, or at least the fear that the party faithful will transfer their allegiance to a different shepherd should the president's sermons become too larded with heretical celebrations of diversity and compassion.
The Republican Party was once the roost of birds who wished to be both Right and right. A Democrat, used to watching his leaders accommodate power, could envy the conservatives their commitment to principle. Even now, despite the outward display of unity, you suspect that only by the imposition of Prussian discipline on reactionary backbenchers and neocon intellectuals does the White House keep a challenger from rising from their midst.
Who might this paladin be? In truth, there are plenty of choices. It is forty years since the Right began systematically training intellectual gunslingers behind the ramparts of Cato and Free Enterprise and sending them in posses to hunt down and string up any candidate of either party who expresses doubt that protecting the power and profits of big corporations is the lord's work. And while you or I might find it vexing to be forced to choose one Republican we prefer above all others, surely those who have accepted Alan Greenspan into their hearts would jump at the chance to anoint a pastor more eloquent than the president at preaching the gospel of limited government and an unfettered marketplace. Four years ago, did you imagine missing Allan Keyes and Gary Bauer? And where is Patrick Buchanan when he might finally serve a purpose?
Taxing though it may be to audition possible alternatives to Bush, it is a job that must be done if the Right is not to lose ground to centrist promises during the campaign. If it didn't seem so obvious, an outsider wishing to be helpful might be moved to offer a suggestion: Rush Limbaugh.
The talk show host is the ideal casting on the right for the role Ralph Nader is so ably filling on the left. Like Nader, Limbaugh would be taken just seriously enough along the party's margins to keep the leading candidate in some kind of check without attracting a single vote from the undecided and moderate middle that will choose the next president. Again like Nader, Limbaugh has no stature or position within the party to lose; he is not a Bill Frist, say, or a Tom DeLay, who, however much they covet the job, know they would risk their already considerable influence over policy if they were to make a grab for the presidency at the wrong moment. Finally, and alas unlike Ralph Nader, when preaching to the choir Rush Limbaugh is a forceful and articulate spokesman for the positions he advocates.
Would he do it? After his drug bust, the talk show host could use a little rehabilitation; "former presidential candidate" makes a more positive resume item than "former drug-abuser" or "ex-con." Besides, if Rush Limbaugh won't die for our sins, by golly who will?
* Although, pace A.Coulter et al, is that better rendered apparatchicks?
Turn Yards Into Parks
There is little in urban life more dreary than the sight of a lawn. Even when well-tended, their uniformity is deadening to the spirit; thus, they are well-suited to the tedium of suburbs but inappropriate to the more bracing landscape of the city. More often than not, a yard is not the verdant meadow that was intended, luxuriant and enticing, but a tufted and scrabbled wasteland, like the carpet of a fleabag hotel.
In the southern California community where I live, concern over the "pedestrian experience" has expressed itself in the harassment of homeowners, miscreants who use high hedges and lines of trees as shields from noise and fumes on busy thoroughfares. Although some of this shrubbery has been in place for decades, property owners suddenly face, without the benefit of public discussion, at least not in this century, of the desirability or not of such vegetation, the possibility of costly fines or expensive removal.
The lifestyle police argue that their intervention is required because high hedges are antisocial, creating areas of private space that are, well, too private. Although there must be reasonable limits on private property rights, it isn't clear that the hedge row is the place where the line should be drawn. In pursuit of the vaunted pedestrian experience, why should an ugly four foot copse be permitted while a beautifully designed and cared for twelve footer is criminalized? Doesn't any fence have the effect of confining the passerby to a narrow ribbon of concrete? And is there any legitimate lifestyle exigency (there may be safety concerns) that requires regulating the height of barriers other than those that actually intersect the public's space? If I don't want to look in my neighbor's window or permit her to peek in mine, is that anyone's business but ours?
Here are two proposals that, if adopted, would not only improve the pedestrian orientation of residential streets, but also offer additional benefits in water conservation, improved air quality, protection for native flora and fauna, and greatly expanded public space. Either scenario could be realized by means of tax incentives, cash payments, abatements, zoning exemptions, or similar forms of positive reinforcement:
Turn lawns into parks and native plant refuges.
Imagine, if you will, a street in your neighborhood, perhaps the one you use to walk to the market or take your daily constitutional. Instead of crabgrass and sandpits, each yard features a garden of native plants: here cacti, there succulents, the occasional lemonadeberry or manzinita, beds of chinese houses and fiesta flowers beyond.
In addition to inducements favoring such uses, the city could offer the assistance of gardeners, nurseries, publications, free compost, etc., to assure that even those with limited means, time or experience would be able to provide the community with beautified walkways. Where there was interest, neighborhood groups might be able to facilitate and coordinate block-long conversions.
Similarly, in the few cases where a building is set back deeply from the street, a landowner might be moved to offer the front yard as a park, a municipally maintained dell being preferable to the typical sunbaked expanse rendered inhospitable by the reek of dog urine mixed with feces flakes. If such a facility were carefully designed to encourage contemplative uses and were limited to daylight hours, with the right incentives what landowners wouldn't be pleased to have the responsibility for their troublesome and demanding front yards taken over by the parks department?
Such an arrangement would need clear boundaries to protect both the property owner and the city, but there is no reason to think the obstacles couldn't be overcome, as they are routinely for office and apartment buildings.
In the southern California community where I live, concern over the "pedestrian experience" has expressed itself in the harassment of homeowners, miscreants who use high hedges and lines of trees as shields from noise and fumes on busy thoroughfares. Although some of this shrubbery has been in place for decades, property owners suddenly face, without the benefit of public discussion, at least not in this century, of the desirability or not of such vegetation, the possibility of costly fines or expensive removal.
The lifestyle police argue that their intervention is required because high hedges are antisocial, creating areas of private space that are, well, too private. Although there must be reasonable limits on private property rights, it isn't clear that the hedge row is the place where the line should be drawn. In pursuit of the vaunted pedestrian experience, why should an ugly four foot copse be permitted while a beautifully designed and cared for twelve footer is criminalized? Doesn't any fence have the effect of confining the passerby to a narrow ribbon of concrete? And is there any legitimate lifestyle exigency (there may be safety concerns) that requires regulating the height of barriers other than those that actually intersect the public's space? If I don't want to look in my neighbor's window or permit her to peek in mine, is that anyone's business but ours?
Here are two proposals that, if adopted, would not only improve the pedestrian orientation of residential streets, but also offer additional benefits in water conservation, improved air quality, protection for native flora and fauna, and greatly expanded public space. Either scenario could be realized by means of tax incentives, cash payments, abatements, zoning exemptions, or similar forms of positive reinforcement:
Turn lawns into parks and native plant refuges.
Imagine, if you will, a street in your neighborhood, perhaps the one you use to walk to the market or take your daily constitutional. Instead of crabgrass and sandpits, each yard features a garden of native plants: here cacti, there succulents, the occasional lemonadeberry or manzinita, beds of chinese houses and fiesta flowers beyond.
In addition to inducements favoring such uses, the city could offer the assistance of gardeners, nurseries, publications, free compost, etc., to assure that even those with limited means, time or experience would be able to provide the community with beautified walkways. Where there was interest, neighborhood groups might be able to facilitate and coordinate block-long conversions.
Similarly, in the few cases where a building is set back deeply from the street, a landowner might be moved to offer the front yard as a park, a municipally maintained dell being preferable to the typical sunbaked expanse rendered inhospitable by the reek of dog urine mixed with feces flakes. If such a facility were carefully designed to encourage contemplative uses and were limited to daylight hours, with the right incentives what landowners wouldn't be pleased to have the responsibility for their troublesome and demanding front yards taken over by the parks department?
Such an arrangement would need clear boundaries to protect both the property owner and the city, but there is no reason to think the obstacles couldn't be overcome, as they are routinely for office and apartment buildings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
