The current fad for atheism, as expressed by the spate of books on the subject, may be explained by the looming threats creationism and Islamic extremism pose to Western values, though in markedly different forms. Tensions between Faith and Reason rise commensurately with the stakes. No wonder that Richard Dawkins seeks to completely uproot religion (a task hindered by the fact that he doesn't seem to know what he's writing about). This backlash ignores two things. First, atheists downplay the salutary influence of religion on culture, including contributions to secular institution such as scholarship, hospitals, orphanages, and universities. Second, they largely fail to defend against lesser attacks on Reason from superstition, which, while milder than terrorism, are more pervasive.
How ironic is it that joining the atheists at the top of the best-sellers' list is The Secret, a book so stupid as to be repugnant? And as David Colquhoun asks in the Guardian, why is no one sounding the alarm when mystical pseudoscience "extends to the highest reaches of the media, government and universities." Atheists are also disturbed by overt religiosity in politicians (particularly the captivation of the GOP by the Religious Right), but what of overt superstition? The Hillrecently reported that Julia Carson, the decrepit Democratic Representative from Indianapolis, "relies on astrology to make important office decisions such as hiring choices." (One local commenter pointed out that discrimination based on date of birth is illegal -- highly ironic for a politician so heavily invested in identity politics.)
In hundreds of ways every day, superstition creeps into our lives, the cumulative effect of which is to weaken our ability to think rationally. Why don't atheists engage superstition with more fervor? Is it because they believe the threat is negligible? Or do they believe that it is easier to convert the faithful than the stupid?
In the comments to my post below on discovering new music, one commenter noted that it's fruitful to pay attention to movie soundtracks, which reminded me of a certain group on Facebook:
It has become apparent that everyone owns the Garden State Soundtrack. Some people feel they are now ultra-hip because they know a couple of songs by The Shins, Nick Drake, and something by Simon and Garfunkel that isn't Sounds of Silence. But as this group suggests, this does not make you a music guru, and it definitely does not make you indie rock. So lace up your newly purchased converse allstars and walk away. Just walk away.
Earlier this year, I urged support for the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 which would remove some restrictions on documents produced by the White House. These restrictions were put in place by executive order after 9/11. The House version of the bill (H.R. 1255) passed by a vote of 333-93 on March 14, with Democrats unanimously in favor and joined by a majority of Republicans.
The Senate version of the bill is currently being held up by Senator Jim Bunning, reports the National Coalition for History, my main source on this topic. Senator Diane Feinstein had requested the bill be brought up on unanimous consent, as can be done for non-controversial legislation, but Bunning objected to having the bill considered without giving his reasons. One wonders whether Bunning has objections to the bill, or if he's operating on behalf of the White House, who previously issued a veto threat.
Obviously, I think this bill should come to a vote. Accessibility means accountability. Open those records!
If I throw away African Americans, and then I throw away Latinos, and then I throw away suburban women, and then I throw away people under 40, and then I throw away everything north of Philadelphia -- there's a morning where Republicans can't get to a majority.
In a fine post below, David asks who in America would have the moral authority to lead a major public protest, should the need arise for one? I believe that sort of moral authority does exist in America, even though those who possess it are not often in the limelight.
People who come to my mind as having substantial moral authority include Franklin Graham on the religious side, and Oprah on the non-religious side. Oprah, of course, is very much in the limelight, but can anyone doubt that she has tremendous influence in American society today?
The key to being a person with moral authority, I think, is to be both widely respected and non-political--or at least thoroughly non-partisan. This eliminates many of the people we are accustomed to seeing in the media discussing the issues of the day. Conflict and controversy seem to drive TV ratings, so we are given Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher--individuals who have made careers out of inflaming passions, rather than garnering respect.
Jack Whelan (whom David quotes below) seems to be convinced that there is a need for a major protest movement against what he sees as a "movement toward the authoritarian surveillance state." Because he sees no moral authority rising up to oppose this shift, he concludes there isn't any such moral authority in America today. I would argue for an alternative conclusion--the threat which Whelan and others perceive is not as dire as they believe it to be.
Current events in Myanmar (aka Burma) are worth following. Some 35,000 Buddhist monks are currently leading protest against that country's unpopular military junta, despite curfews and sanctions against peaceful assembly. Soldiers in full battle gear met the anti-government protesters yesterday, and today there are rumors of fighting and five deaths. President Bush announced that the U.S. would tighten economic sanctions on the leaders and the financial backers of the regime. It would also impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights.
Myanmar/Burma is already pretty isolated on the international stage, with China as its only real state sponsor. How the Chinese government would respond to a brutal crackdown on government protesters, which the junta did to a previous protest in 1988, is unknown given how the Chinese are busy cleaning up their public image in advance of next year's Olympic Games. We probably shouldn't get our hopes up that atrocities will be avoided.
I'm fascinated that Buddhist monks are apparently the moral inspiration behind these recent events. As The Economist reports (first article linked above),
At first, the monks limited themselves to chanting prayers and sermons, and urged the Burmese public not to join their marches. But over the weekend, a hitherto unknown group, the All Burma Monks' Alliance, urged people to "struggle peacefully against the evil military dictatorship" until its downfall. Monday's march was joined by some of the country's best-known actors and musicians, as well as leaders of the opposition National League of Democracy (NLD) and crowds of ordinary Burmese. It has become the biggest challenge Myanmar's brutal regime has faced since the uprising of 1988, which it crushed with extreme violence....
So far the regime has seemed unsure how to react..... Besides their strength in numbers--there are 400,000 of them--the monks have considerable influence. They are the one group that the military regime might hesitate to confront.
You don't see churches, or any religious organizations, with that much moral authority in the U.S. anymore. Not since the Martin Luther King Jr-led civil rights movement at least. The religious right is (accurately) seen as in bed with the authorities and hated and dismissed by the majority of Americans, while the religious left is trivial. Suppose a need should arise for such a protest in this country, who would have the moral authority to lead it? Jon Stewart? Jack Whelan asks the important questions,
Who has the moral stature to lead such a protest in this country? I think that's what it's going to take for such a protest not to be dismissed as fomented by lefty rabble rousers. This is the point I've been making repeatedly, and which secularists don't seem to get. The lead has to be taken by people who have moral authority, or it just seems like the politics of the disgruntled. There has to be a call to conscience by a leader or a group of leaders who have the credibility to do that. Any sense from readers about potential religious figures in this country who could play a leadership role in such a protest movement? I'm sorry to say that for me no one comes to mind. What is it about American religious life that the emergence of such moral leadership is almost impossible to imagine? Am I being too harsh in saying so?
There's been a lot of commentary on how Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's victory in the slam contest between him and Iranian "President" Mahmoud Ahmadenijad was teh awesome. Time for some contrarianism.
Matt Yglesias: "[I]t's still fundamentally odd to decide that a maniac should participate in a debate with a university president as part of a bizarre publicity stunt whose main purpose is to exaggerate the importance of both men."
IN IRAN, in every Arab country, in most of the Old World and especially in the Muslim world, hospitality is very, very important. Even mortal enemies ought to be treated with civility, kindness and hot tea-when they are guests. What Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elicited from Columbia University today must go down in the books as one of the worst displays of inhospitality that will be seen anywhere in the world this year. President Bollinger's introduction was directly and personally insulting. As Mr Ahmadinejad's host, he refused to distance himself in any way from the spitting-mad crowds outside.
Good for him, you may say. Certainly Mr Bollinger and American politicians with him, have a hometown crowd to please. But in the rest of the world, notably the Muslim world, their bad manners are likely to burnish the image of Iran's long-suffering president and stoke anti-American sentiment.
Fifty years ago today, under orders from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army protected nine African American schoolchildren as they attended class at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, in defiance of state governor Orval Faubus and segregationist wishes. The integration at Central High was a defining moment in the postwar Civil Rights era for many reasons, not the least of which being that it demonstrated the federal government was willing to defend the rights of minorities with force when it had to, emboldening the then young movement.
David Brooks has filed a compelling piece with the NYT titled "The Center Holds". Here's a tease: "Now it's evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the 'netroots.'"
Megan McArdle laments how one of her favourite bands sold out to a maudlin television advertisement, which, shock of shocks, boosted their album sales. This leads her to wonder, "do people really buy music off commercials?" I'm no expert on music, but it did lead me to ponder an imperfect model of music exposure.
I'm rather partial to the argument that consolidation in radio broadcasting has led to a homogenization of playlists, ultimately making them limited and bland. How then do people get exposed to non-Top 40 bands? I can think of a few ways:
Patronizing small venues for live music (helps if your city is NYC, LA, Austin, or Nashville)
Reading music publications, such as Spin or Pitchfork
Word-of-mouth
Internet music outlets
Ambient coffeehouse or bookstore music
Television commercials
These can be read along a hipster-square spectrum, and given the disproportionate number of squares in the population, TV commercials would be the most likely source for the median American to find new music (by which time, to hipsters like McArdle, it's already old).
The pertinent question is whether squares will recognize this new music as music or just simply background noise, and the possibility of the latter is probably what irks hipsters -- the squares don't appreciate it on the same level, dammit! However, some set of squares inevitably will be struck by the music and seek it out. I am one of them.
Slightly up the list, I fell for Madeleine Peyroux in 2003 while browsing at Barnes & Noble, and really, you shouldn't be shy about asking who's on the speakers when you're shopping. Incidentally, she's now been featured in two television commercials: one (two?) for Dockers, which I do not wear; and one for Old Navy jeans, which I do (although, ahem, not the 'flirt fit' featured). And I mention these last points to ponder whether the desirability of the product being offered influences the amount of attention the viewer gives to the music. I don't reckon I'd ever buy anything at JC Penny, but this commercial led me to seek out Forever Thursday. And who can deny that the song in the new Apple iPod Nano commercial by Feist is really catchy?
Maybe I'm just provincial, but it seems to me that rather than ruining good bands, commercialism helps disseminate them to the broadest accepting audience, another example of middlebrow culture appropriating and, perhaps, preserving beauty.
There has been considerable chatter over the fate of The Episcopal Church (TEC) throughout September, especially now with only six days left until Bishop Kate must respond to the February Dar es Salaam Communique. Par the course, a number of orthodox bishops have recently reiterated their promise to leave TEC, complete with diocese, should the church not accept the terms of the Communique.
Noticeably, the Rt. Rev. Jeffrey Steenson, bishop of the Rio Grande, has been a part of this contingent. Until now. On Friday, Bishop Steenson wrote his clergy, announcing that he will relinquish his see at the end of the year. Further, the Bishop hints (and Stand Firm confirms) that he will be entering into full communion with the Church of Rome. The "church of the last straw" has left many of her faithful hanging by a thread after Rowan Williams hinted that TEC might delay its response to the Communique at the recent House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans. Is it possible to continue TEC's "listening process" from across the Tiber?
Like David, who discusses the man below, I have long admired and appreciated the work of Rich Mullins (a Hoosier by birth). Although Mullins rose to fame and popularity in the 90's before the internet had hit its stride, some of his music and videos have made its way to YouTube. "Screen Door" and "Creed (Credo)" are among my favorites available there. But perhaps the best material regarding Mullins on YouTube is an incredibly well done documentary reflecting on his life and work. The documentary, entitled "Homeless Man," is broken down into parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3a, Part 3b, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
September 19th marked the tenth anniversary of the tragic death of Rich Mullins, contemporary Christian music writer and modern day monk. Though best known for his worship choruses "Awesome God" and "Step by Step," Mullins was a versatile and talented musician. His lyrics were usually metaphorically challenging ("Awesome God" an obvious exception) and his instrumentation was eclectic. He introduced the Christian world to the unique sound of the hammered dulcimer, and to Appalachian and Irish folk music.
Also, in stark contrast with the Christian celebrities of his time (and ours), Mullins aggressively avoided the limelight, even to the point of donating much of the profits from his album sales to charity. As the story goes, Mullins trusted others with the financials, while paying himself a "worker's salary" in the mid-$20 thousands and giving the rest away. In addition to his St. Francis-inspired asceticism, Mullins spent his time teaching music to children on Indian Reservations in the Southwest when not touring.
A Nebraska state legislator has filed a lawsuit against God for "making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing 'widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants,'" the Associated Press reported yesterday.
The wire story goes on to quote an Omaha court official who claims that a written repsonse to the lawsuit "miraculously" appeared. (I'm assuming it wasn't in the form of a disembodied hand writing on a courthouse wall.) Anyway, adding the perfect touch to this offbeat story is the April 2006 file photo which accompanies it. Readers familiar with religious art will notice a certain "accidental" alignment with a background object.
In a post that speaks volumes about a split in the conservative movement, Joe Carter of the Evangelical Outpost begins to question his support of Fred Thompson. He writes:
[Thompson's] views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order.
Thompson supports the idea of a federal marriage amendment which prohibits states from having to recognize gay marriages in other states. But for Carter (and James Dobson), this doesn't go far enough. Carter and Dobson prefer an amendment which bars gay marriage nationally. Carter's general uneasiness with federalism is revealing. He goes on:
Sadly, many conservatives--including it appears, Sen. Thompson--assume that federalism is an inherently conservative philosophy. It is not. In fact, federalism can be antithetical to conservatism when applied in the way that Thompson seems to champion...
For if conservatives are willing to give the state the power to kill an innocent woman, willing to let adherence to procedure trump our dedication to justice, willing to put the rights of the government ahead of the rights of the individual, then we have lost all sense of what it means to be conservatives.
I guess I'm not seeing the evidence based on the man's history that he really is so committed to, well, much of anything, but to this conception of federalism in particular. I think it looked like a nice, vacuous formula to run on, that would both let him try to put some rhetorical distance between himself and the Bushies, and that would let everyone project their own favorite policies onto. Is there any meat here?
If anything, Carter's posts reveal that Thompson's stance doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone; it isn't a safe, "vacuous" position. Indeed, Thompson's position highlights a defining difference between "the Bushies" and other wings of the conservative movement.
There are countless reasons to support federalism, not the least of which is that the founders intended it to be the governing philosophy. But it also maximizes freedom in a large and diverse nation where, without it, states are governed in ways which are not ideal for its unique population, economy and culture. This freedom ensures choice and competition. In many cases, such as education, it can also ensure efficiency.
The list of reasons to support federalism is long, but the real issue here is that it's a principle. Or as Einstein might say, a unified field theory for government philosophies. As such, it must be followed even when it's inconvenient. Saith Thompson:
Adhering to the principles of federalism is not easy. As one who was on the short end of a couple of 99-1 votes, I can personally attest to it. Federalism sometimes restrains you from doing things you want to do. You have to leave the job to someone else — who may even choose not to do it at all. However, if conservatives abandon this valued principle that limits the federal government, or if we selectively use it as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, then we will be doing a disservice to our country as well as the cause of conservatism.
For Carter, Christian conservative ends can justify big national government means. But for libertarian-minded conservatives like me (and, apparently, Thompson), we must uphold the principles underlying federalism. In doing so we will find that federalism is a principle whose means, in and of itself, are fruitful and rewarding.
Former Office of Legal Counsel chief Jack Goldsmith has come out with a new book, The Terror Presidency. He's a conservative lawyer who become disillusioned with the recklessness of the Bush White House. The following excerpt jibes with the interviews I've heard with him on the radio:
[Dick Cheney's lawyer David] Addington once expressed his general attitude toward accommodation when he said, "We're going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop." He and, I presumed, his boss viewed power as the absence of constraint. These men believed that the president would be best equipped to identify and defeat the uncertain, shifting, and lethal new enemy by eliminating all hurdles to the exercise of his power. They had no sense of trading constraint for power. It seemed never to occur to them that it might be possible to increase the president's strength and effectiveness by accepting small limits on his prerogatives in order to secure more significant support from Congress, the courts, or allies. They believed cooperation and compromise signaled weakness and emboldened the enemies of America and the executive branch. When it came to terrorism, they viewed every encounter outside the innermost core of most trusted advisers as a zero-sum game that if they didn't win they would necessarily lose.
Reminds me of a Bible study I once was in, whereat the leader suggested that the Gospel could be extrapolated from any passage in the Bible. How's that for taking things out of context?
Bill Nye has become the latest, if unwitting, draftee in the culture wars. This is a bit of a shock, as it's hard to think of a less threatening figure, but nonetheless, the good people of Waco, TX too umbrage at his case for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis:
But nothing got people as riled as when he brought up Genesis 1:16, which reads: "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
The lesser light, he pointed out, is not a light at all, but only a reflector.
At this point, several people in the audience stormed out in fury.
A sample of Americans were asked to choose among seven fictional heroes who they would want by their side in the event of a disaster. The results:
MacGyver: 27%
Indiana Jones, played by Harrison Ford: 16%
John McClane, played by Bruce Willis in the Die Hard films: 14%
James Bond (played by various actors): 8%
Jason Bourne, played by Matt Damon: 8%
Lara Croft, played by Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider: 7%
Jack Bauer of 24, played by Kiefer Sutherland: 7%.
It's Not Just Terrorists Who Take Advantage: Someone will propose new "Antiterrorism" legislation. It will be full of things off of bureaucrats' wish lists. They will be things that wouldn't have prevented these attacks even if they had been in place yesterday. Many of them will be civil-liberties disasters. Some of them will actually promote the kind of ill-feeling that breeds terrorism. That's what happened in 1996. Let's not let it happen again.
Let me also commend the 9/11 Digital Archive, a history project which is recording remembrances of that fateful day.
"It's much easier if people know the God they don't believe in than to have no idea of Him at all. Through this we'll connect to people. There is always a danger of any club or institution becoming inward looking. We think we exist to serve the community"
The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, wants his city to know the Good Book. No pithy slogans or television commercials, just the Word. Looking back to a 19th-century tradition of distributing Bibles door-to-door, Jensen will propose that a copy of the Psalms and New Testament be delivered in book, DVD, or CD format during an upcoming diocesan convention.
This comes only weeks after Sydney's six bishops stated they would not accept the Archbishop of Canterbury's invitation to the 2008 Lambeth Conference until The Episcopal Church responds to the Primates' demands in the February Dar es Salaam communique. Among other things, the letter asks that the American church refrain from ordaining practicing homosexuals. The Episcopal Church has, at this date, less than one month to utter its response.
Whether or not this this signals the end of the Anglican Communion will be clear soon enough; whether members of The Episcopal Church are prepared to abandon their identity of what it means to be ekklesia remains nebulous. No matter what direction Bishop Kate chooses, perhaps she might ask to be included on Dr. Jensen's mailing list.
Here's that clash between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul from last night's GOP debate on Fox News that one of our readers requested. I think these two voices have been in my head for the past year at least.
"Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion for historians, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it," [Huckabee] said. "We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor they deserve."
Amid loud cheers, Paul responded, "The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives, hijacked our foreign policy. They are responsible, not the American people."
Huckabee quickly fired back: "Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country."
As the crowd roared louder, Paul answered, "When we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people -- through their representatives -- to correct the mistake, not continue the mistake. We have dug a hole for ourselves and we have dug a hole for our party. We are losing elections, and we are going down next year if we don't change it."
Huckabee replied loudly, "Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor."
This is the debate the GOP needs to be having. Huckabee concedes that the war is going poorly (is there anyone still arguing that the war is going great but the "drive-by media" is not reporting it?) but argues that since we made a mess, we're obligated to clean it up. Honestly, this might be one of the better justifications for prolonging the war the hawk crowd has at this point. Paul says the war is a mistake and the administration should get us out of Iraq. If it doesn't, the people will elect someone who will.
Does the race need Fred Dalton Thompson at this point? I'm with James Poulos: FDT matters only to the extent he influences the line between Huckabee and Paul, the most important line in the GOP race this time around.
Update: Here's the exchange from YouTube. Quote above comes in about 1:20, but the entire exchange is worth it. Did we "buy" Iraq because we "broke" it, per Huckabee, or is the present surge effort about "saving face," per Paul?
Perhaps in an effort to head off any "empty suit" charges, or perhaps just to get you to visit his website, Fred Thompson's campaign is soliciting questions from several leading weblogs. Here's the announcement:
On Thursday, Fred Thompson will be kicking off his campaign for the presidency in Des Moines, IA, touring through the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina before visiting Florida and returning to Lawrenceburg, TN for a homecoming celebration.
While on this tour, Fred Thompson will be answering the tough questions, whether they come from a voter at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire or from the nation's top journalists. However, Fred wants to make sure that you get a chance to get your questions answered as well, so we're asking some bloggers to help us pick good questions from you. The bloggers will solicit your questions, select the best questions and send them to Fred Thompson to answer. Fred will be responding to some of your questions each day via video and posting those responses to our website.
We invite you to submit a question for Fred here, and check http://fred08.com/ often for Fred's dispatches from the road.
Rev. D. James Kennedy, founder and head pastor of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida, has gone to meet his maker. The Associated Press offers its obituary here.
Positive Liberty is a good weblog whose contributors have long been friends (in the blogging sense) with ITA's contributors. Generally the writers there are libertarian, academic and secular, and although I find plenty to agree with in these classical liberal thinkers, there is also plenty of room for disagreement, ensuring that I always find the posts thought-provoking.
But apparently all is not well at PL. Timothy Sandefur, a PL contributor and one of the leading attorneys in the nation on matters pertaining to liberty, has terminated his association with PL. In an interesting post at his new internet location, Freespace, Sandefur explains his reasons for leaving. The straw that seems to have broken the camel's back was a disagreement between Sandefur and Jason Kuznicki over the war.
To recap the most recent vollies, in this post Kuznicki accuses Sandefur of dodging the subject of American prisoner mistreatment by discussing al Qaeda, causing Sandefur to "resign" and demand an apology. He argues his point thus:
Kuznicki's posts on the war have a single theme: we are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Of course, the reality is that we are not wrong. The occupation of Iraq is going very badly because it has been badly planned out and poorly executed, and that is wrong. The invasion of Iraq on the premise that we could simply bring freedom to people who do not believe it, was very wrong. And, to repeat myself yet again, the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib was wrong. I have never denied these things. What I have refused to do is to play it Kuznicki's way - what I see as the easy way - and to remain silent about the vastly worse abuses that go on at the hands of our enemies. This is not a red herring, it is intellectual perspective. There is more than one kind of bias, and to focus constant indignation on the United States, which is on the right side in this war, while remaining silent about the vastly worse, and far more intentional, crimes committed by the other side, is one of the more insidious forms of it.
I suppose the cliche thing to do would be to say the tiff is sad and mourn the breakup of a good blog. But, frankly, I find the dispute intellectually stimulating and if Sandfur's departure means we'll have more vigorous debate like this, so be it.
In his apology for Fred Thompson below, Josh comes to what seems to be the justification for supporting the Jowly Giant, "Yet Thompson has the capability, both with policy credentials and an impeccable magnetic personality, to energize and unify a broken and fractured conservative movement." To take the latter part of this sentence and marry it to the former, I'd ask what constitutes the "conservative movement"? Or rather, to what does this unification refer? Certainly, it could mean the consolidation of political power among the factions of the base, and I too agree that this is a plausible outcome of a Thompson candidacy. But I don't see how his candidacy could shore up the ideological underpinnings of the Republican Party, even with his lip service to federalism. This is largely due to the fact that, perhaps necessarily, ideology is an elitist creation, yet the Republican primary electorate has been poisoned by populism. Are conservatives really swooning because of his re-discovery of the Tenth Amendment? I think this places too much importance on the substance, such as it is, of his campaign.
As for Thompson's "policy credentials," I'm unconvinced that they are all that impressive -- or relevant. Take, for example this nifty poll:
Likely Republican voters were asked how familiar they were the healthcare plans of all their candidates, even including non-candidate Fred Thompson.
The results? In Nevada 29 percent said they were familiar with Thompson's healthcare plan. In New Hampshire it was 15 percent, in Iowa 18 percent, in Florida it was 22 percent and in South Carolina had 24 percent with some idea about his plan.
Huh?
Thompson makes no reference to healthcare in his short stump speeches and has yet to even enter the race much less offer a healthcare plan.
Nonetheless voters in these states told the pollsters at Woelfel Research, Inc that they were more familiar with Fred Thompson's healthcare plan than they were of Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback.
That leaves us with Thompson's "impeccable magnetic personality," or as David Weigel puts it with less finesse, "his larynx and pineal gland." This is pretty thin glue for unifying the movement.
A Nebraska state legislator has 