RoR: Forum

Post 0

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 3:17am

Link

Edit

Provocative post, Matthew.

The secular Goldwater types have become a precious few on the Republican Right. The new brand of right-wing politics is "progressive conservatism," which is, in essence, Big Government Conservatism. It's not simply something dominated by fundamentalist types in social affairs, but something greatly influenced by neoconservative "nation-building"---both at home and abroad. That "nation-building" enterprise encompasses the very "corporatism" that 'left to its own devices' is inimical to the economic liberty that all of us see as a bulwark against statism. (Let's not forget that neoconservatism as an intellectual movement is rooted not in the Goldwater right, but in the social democratic- and Trotskyite-left.)

Check out that link above, which says a lot about what this "right-wing" embodies.

(Also check out Not a Blog...)

(Edited by sciabarra on 9/01, 3:19am)

Post 1

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 4:40am

Link

Edit

MH,

I think you are talking about the past. Right and left are employing different strategies today.

The new-left have indeed already conceded that the "class-war" can no longer be fought through economics. They are just as willing to inherit a "traditionally conservative" approach to handling the economy in order to win votes. Anyway, with the collapse of the economic model of the Soviet Union they no longer have anymore hope of its success.

Yet they have not given up their age-old ambition of "class-war".

As can be seen in Blair's "third-way" Government, "class-war" is now being fought on the basis of social re-programming.

They do this through re-education programs in schools favouring under-achievers, initiatives that favour certain "lower-class" groups over others in any sort of activity that requires merit (from job acquisition to places in universities), regulation of individuals through ID cards and integrated Government databases so they can better target welfare (i.e. redistribute wealth from higher to lower classes) and banning the activities of upper classes by a fox-hunting ban, allowing ramblers to walk over their properties wherever they like, not allowing them self-defence against criminals and even stopping them from building new houses on their own properties!!!!

The right-wing in the States also favours social controls - but of a different variety. Enforcing sexual and procreation morality.

So, left vs. right is not economic vs. social control anymore - but social vs. social control - but with two completely different objectives. And I do believe that the left-wing objective of "class-war" will and has already turned out to be the most damaging, because the general public have already bought into their "class-war" ideology - hook, line and sinker.

Post 2

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 6:38am

Link

Edit

Matthew,
Please, don't take this personally, but:
I can't believe I'm reading this on an Objectivist forum. Doesn't anyone think in principles anymore? "The lesser of two evils"! "The least harmful of two sorts of oppressive legislation?". Now, we have the "best" type of liberty stealing, individualist suppresssion on offer??
The "left" wing kill innocent people in Peru and Camobodia, the "right" wing kill innocent people in Argentina.
Jesus Holy Henry Christ, Can't anyone see that once you admit as acceptable something on principle - all that's left is fighting over degrees? And in such a fight, it's "the most ruthless, the least decent" that wins out?
I've offered the argument before, that for a true Objectivist, the only response is to refuse to recognise either; Vera has offered it from Europe, and I'll tell you what, none of you offers either of us a sustained, reasonable response.
You all just ignore what we are saying.
Why is that, I wonder?

Post 3

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 7:42am

Link

Edit

Chris,

Thanks for the response, and the link from Not a Blog. Of course this "progressive conservatism" is presently the prevalent strand of thought in the Bush regime, but the way I see it the Right is a sort of coalition of various intellectual strands, some of which are much closer to libertarianism than others. That neoconservatism and the Religious Right have been pretty influential for much of Bush's first term doesn't mean that this will continue to be the case - indeed your own "Conservative Crack-up" post, which is linked from the post you linked above seems to suggest that their influence is waning.

Marcus,

Thanks for the comments. Sure the Left under Clinton in the US and Blair in the UK proclaim themselves to have accepted some degree of free market economics, but as far as I can see it is only a grudging acceptance, once the failure of their preferred methods had been amply demonstrated, and then only by their frontline politicians. The socialistic tendencies remain certainly in the UK Labour Party and to a lesser extent the US Democrats, though they are at present only expressed by the less powerful politicians and the more extreme supporters (Michael Moore, George Soros etc). As to Blair's class war, most of the measures you've mentioned amount to restrictions on the use of private property and/or the regulation of business practices. I would regard both of these as at least partly economic controls.

I would add that my article is based on a generalisation, as those Rightists who make it into power still favour some economic controls, whereas most Leftist politicians these days favour some social control. The key difference is one of emphasis.

Cass,

Don't worry, I won't take it personally :-) I fully expected the article to raise a few eyebrows.

I have to ask though whether you've read it properly! I have said nothing in support of any kind of dictatorship, whether Left or Right. Indeed one of the Argentine dictators once invaded the Falkland Islands, and promptly got their asses kicked by the British military sent in by Mrs Thatcher's government (which I did praise). I wasn't involved in the discussion that you refer to with you and Vera, but you do make a fair enough point. Eventually, we all want an Objectivist government. Fine. In the meantime, what should we do? We could vote for Libertarian Parties that barely blip on the radar (the UK dioesn't even have one), that might make a point of some sort - in fact I read a while ago that some in the US Republican party are increasingly concerned about voters switching from them to the LP. The downside is that if enough voters switch to LP, the Democrats get in. Alternatively, we could try to influence the existing parties in a more libertarian direction. For the last few decades, many libertarians and free-marketeers have through various policy institutes and other groups attempted to do just that. And which parties have tended to take up those policies? There is a reason, at least in the US and UK, why libertarian pressure group were most influential in the 1980s, why the RLC (Republican libertarian group) has a huge roster of sitting Republican politicians among its supporters, whereas a supposed equivalent organisation for Democrats isn't even on the radar screen, and why dispassionate political observers place libertarians on the Right.

MH

Post 4

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 9:47am

Link

Edit

I am in general agreement with Matthew's arguments.
Chris, I came to Ayn Rand through Barry Goldwater, who was certainly the most libertarian major politician in America in the last century. My siding with the Republicans currently is based Bush's recognition of three important things:
1) Our right to respond when attacked and his understanding of an effective way to do that.
2) His tax policies, which are as respectful of achievement and capital formation as are currently palatable, and
3) His forthcoming efforts (I believe) to aim entitlements towards a personal responsibility and investment approach.
Cass- I define politics as the effort to move policy towards my philosophical objectives. It seems to me that you require that it already be there.
Marcus-you point out where we have the most work to do. The schools have quietly been taken over by the left, and public opinion has been molded by a leftist press. I am constantly horrified by the lack of aggressive moral indignation to the left's lies, distortions, and just plain drivel.
Once this campaign is over, I believe there needs to be a serious discussion of realignment, which I believe may well come from a new alternative arising from the political center.

Post 5

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 1:31pm

Link

Edit

Cass,

EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post 6

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 10:55am

Link

Edit

Another Canadian first. In addition to the PCers taking a leaf from the Canadian Liberals, who added "multiculturalism" to the policy mix up here in the early 1970s, we now have a new American movement borrowing the name of the Canadian Conservative party from the 1930s until recently. The first vote I cast was for the Progressive Conservative party, under Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister at the time.)

If you're interested in the "Bible" of the Canadian PC movement, it's Lament for a Nation: the Defeat of Canadian Nationalism by George Grant (1965). David Frum might have read that book on the sly when still a Toronto lad.

The equivalent below-the-covers-with-a-flashlight book for people my age was Peter Brimelow's The Patriot Game.

Post 7

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 1:55pm

Link

Edit

Just as the word "selfish" has a true definition,
so do the words "liberal" and "republican". Perhaps it is time to resurrect all three true definitions.

Post 8

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 3:57pm

Link

Edit

Ethan:
Thank you for your support. It's a bit dispiriting to me to see how few Objectivists here share it!
I most certainly don't "require that my objectives already be there" James. I just happen to think that you can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds that's all.
If I may borrow from "Atlas Shrugged" - I believe that to vote for rulers who are systematically destroying everything an Objectivist stands for in order to try and win something you want from them is to try and live a kind of moral pragmatism parallel to that of Robert Stadler for the same reasons - and the end result will be much the same.
Reading history shows us that civilizations that are strong within themselves are never overcome. Civilizations self destruct from the inside, leaving no resistance to attack; and I don't believe that by acting to promote a known evil - and worse, being seen by the rest of the world to do so - we are doing anything to help achieve a society that has strength and health to resist the attacks being launched on it right now. Only intransigent adherence to a clearly stated moral principle can do that.
I'm no foreigner to having to compromise with the fact that we dont live in an Objectivist/Libertarian society Matthew - I work for a Government hospital after all, paid for by tax-payer monies because the system leaves me little choice but to starve or live off others. Not an attractive proposition :-)
I guess we all draw a line in the sand somewhere and for each of us it's a bit different. For me, that somewhere is here.

Post 9

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 3:57pm

Link

Edit

it would seem that one partial solution to the problem of minority representation is to remove the 'all-or-none' status of electing, going for percentages, as in other countries...certainly wouldn't be any worse than the way it is now...

Post 10

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 4:28pm

Link

Edit

Interesting dialogue continuing here; I appreciate, Jim, that you (and so many others) were baptized in mainstream politics by Barry Goldwater---who, whatever his faults, still was wise enough to understand that the principle of limited government meant limited government across economic, social, and other spheres. Unfortunately, the current political parties don't get that principle.

The thing is: I have little use for the U.N., and I too accept wholeheartedly the principle that there is a right of response to attacks. I was among the strongest advocates for a lethal response to Al Qaeda (and continue to argue for such). I won't replay the whole Iraq debate here, but my objections to that war were not because I believed in the legitimacy of the Hussein regime; I simply thought that containment options were less costly than a full-scale invasion and occupation. I thought it less costly than this exercise in democratic "nation-building" in a country that has splintered cultural traditions, none of which has been particularly open to liberty or democracy as political values. But the US is there now... and is likely to stay there for the foreseeable future.

Bush's tax policies: well, yeah, tax cuts are good. But if the policies only lead to massive deficits and mounting debt, it only means that investment opportunities will be "crowded out," and a future generation is going to be given the bill. And, yes, I like the emphasis on personal responsibility, but I'm not too keen on the pietist religious streak that leads Bush to see "faith-based initiatives" as the way to achieve it. The GOP has so much support among the religious right and the neoconservative right (which, as I said, draws inspiration from the left), that I am not thrilled with this state of affairs. (That Reagan drew from the religious right is true; but that group was a fringe movement, when compared to its current electoral power; and Reagan, in any event, had a much more libertarian rhetorical gloss than anything ever uttered by George W. Bush.)

In any event, I'll grant this much: Bush, like Reagan, and even like Giuliani, tells you where he stands. People admire consistency, and often prefer the "devil" they know to the "devil" they don't know. That means Kerry is in trouble. I stand by my prediction that Bush will win this election. But even if Kerry pulls off some crazy victory, I do believe that the foreign policy situation has now been institutionalized, and we are not likely to see any fundamental change in that realm. Economically, let's face it: The parties only fight over a very small percentage of the budget. The rest of it is federally mandated, and not much will be done to change the fundamental character of the mixed economy to which both parties are committed.

Post 11

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 4:47pm

Link

Edit

Cass,

Imagine this scenario. You live in Europe during WWII. The Germans look like they're going to take over. Then the US and British show up for an epic battle. Let's further imagine you have some critical information that would help either of the two armies. If you give it to the US, you save them and defeat the Germans. If you give it to the Germans, you ensure decades of Hitler. And if you give it to nobody, you don't know who will win.

Now remember, you're choosing between National Socialism on one hand, and FDR's New Deal on the other hand. Are you really suggesting that you wouldn't throw your lot in with either of them because both are flawed? You'd risk letting Hitler win so you can keep your hands clean?

I'm asking this extreme example because you say that to vote for either, which isn't nearly as decisive as this situation, is wrong in and of itself. I don't buy it at all. Supporting the US, even with its flaws, is better than letting the Germans win. This sounds a lot like an ethical idea that doesn't consider what the outcome will be at all, and just rules out actions as immoral regardless of context. Maybe you can say why this isn't the case? But ethics revolves around choosing between different options, and Objectivist ethics is certainly tied to what the outcome will be.

That's how we judge the morality of an action. Does it benefit our lives or does it hurt it compared to our other choices? In an election, you have several choices. You can either vote for one of the candidates, or not vote at all. But what do you gain? And what do you lose? You can't evaluate your options without considering the consequences.

From my perspective, if you don't vote, you gain next to nothing. Yes you've managed to tell the politicians that you don't like any of them, but they don't care. They want to be elected. As long as that keeps happening, it doesn't matter how many people vote. Even in countries with amazingly low voter turn-out, nothing has change. To my knowledge, it hasn't affected government policy in the slightest. They probably just write it off as voter apathy or laziness. Voting for a third-party with no chance of success has at least had some documented effects in the past.

And what do you lose? Well, that depends on who wins the vote. If the Germans would win WWII without you helping the US, you've lost all the difference between those two worlds. In other words, there's a potentially enormous cost to choosing not to vote either way, and all you gain is adding one more name to voter apathy.

There area bunch of factors to consider in weighing this choice. Some of them are:
1.) Are the two candidates equally good/bad, so voting for neither has no or limited cost?
2.) Does voting for a third party or no party have a chance of changing the future in a positive direction?
3.) Are there strategic reasons to vote for one over the other (Kerry in '04 so we don't have Hillary in '08)?
4.) Is an election dominated by a single issue, and so your vote has more significance? (Imagine two candidates battling over whether there should be an income tax or not. Or imagine during the Lincoln/Douglas debates where slavery was a central theme).

The point of all of this is that I disagree that a principled person cannot vote. I think that's acting on a moral rule, not a moral principle. It strikes me as trying to be intellectually "pure" by avoiding the dirty business of making tough decisions based on complicated facts.

James Kilbourne has a very good point when he says "I define politics as the effort to move policy towards my philosophical objectives." Any kind of moral rules that prevents us from taking steps towards freedom (as opposed to standing back and waiting for it to be handed to us as an option) are not moral.

Post 12

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 5:16pm

Link

Edit

Cass- I believe that Bush is systematically working towards goals that will limit government and promote freedom - there's the rub. You don't. I don't believe in Objectivist principles less than you. I see a different way to achieve them, but I am the better for hearing your arguments. I find your last line re: drawing different lines in the sand most wise.
Chris - isn't it nice we have some things about which we disagree? I mean Lanza, Rand, Mantle..and now, being in part three of your dialectical trilogy, I am a hopelessly Sciabarra-parroting convert to dialectical libertarianism. Actually, it is within that framework that I appreciate Bush more, not less.
A complete discussion on nation building would be great, as I have done a complete 180 on that subject since 9/11.
On tax policies, I can't be goaded into a defense of his views on religion, but I seem to be more of a supply-sider than you. In other words: lower taxes- more private investment- bigger pie- more government renenue- lower deficits. Again, a long discussion.
On the portion of the budget that is federally mandated, there is only the change of how we fund entitlements to help our side in this election, and it is, I admit, a long fix.
Robert- your solution would kill the best thing that differentiates America from other republics. I say keep the Electoral College and keep the two party system.Make politicians appeal to regions as well as mass numbers for votes. Make change very, very difficult. Force everyone basically into two camps that are somewhere near the political center.

Post 13

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 5:28pm

Link

Edit

To start with Joseph, thankyou for taking the time and effort to give me reasoned response. I do appreciate it.

I probably can't answer all your points here, but I can offer the few that spring immediately to mind.
I can't accept your analogy with a WWII situation, because we aren't clearly at war. (Not even the problem of terrorism constitutes a situation of declared war between sovereign states). It smacks of the "lifeboat" theories of philosophy - you know, "who would you throw overboard" kind of crap - it's not appropriate to voting in a relatively safe situation. Life isn't lived in lifeboats, and election voting doesn't happen in a War like scenario.
As I said once before, (not on this thread), if someone sees a political party as a positive value, then trying to vote them in is consistent.
But what I get from these threads is a "they're both horrific and do things we despise, but we'd better throw our weight behind one or other".
You mentioned WWII. I've just finished reading William Shirers "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" for the second time. And do you know who put Hitler in a position to do what he did? Forces who thought that, compared to the Communists, he was the least of two evils, and that once he was there they would " move policy towards my (their) philosophical objectives."
The last time I voted - or ever will - was when the arch Socialist Keating had ruined so much in Aus. and John Howard made definate "free market, individual liberty, reduce Government and taxation" noises.
So I voted for him. And the first thing he did was knee jerk react to the Port Arthur massacres, and outlaw all private gun ownership! And then proceeded to reduce liberties and increase taxes!!!
I dont see that trying to use a movement to cause political change by passive resistance is equivalent to "standing back and waiting for a desired effect to be handed to one on a plate" In fact, I find the morality implied in this statement somewhat offensive. As Vera Doerr stated, with a "No Voter" party reaching 80%, politicians across Europe are starting to have panic attacks. If they gave an election and no-one came, wouldn't they start listening to what people really wanted from them?
If its' true politicians dont care, and will get in anyway, then what difference does it make whether I vote or not? If the bulk of Australians want Latham, what difference does my vote make?
It makes the difference to me, in the end. If they want to sell the country down the drain, they can darn well do it without my consent or help.

Post 14

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 5:39pm

Link

Edit

I believe that Bush is systematically working towards goals that will limit government and promote freedom
Then of course you must vote for him James, because you see him as a positive value, not the "lesser of two evils". I see nothing wrong with that at all.
Cheers

Post 15

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 6:31pm

Link

Edit

Hi Cass,

I know it might smack of "lifeboat" theory, but it's not. Often it's useful to present a clearer example to evaluate the principle. Lifeboat scenarios are a problem because they then try to generalize it into inapplicable areas.

It's true that in the voting scenario, we're not at war. But if anything, that should make it easier. Your life isn't on the line when you choose between the two sides. Or if we wanted to change the scenario, imagine the US and Germany decided to let France have a vote on who they'd go. The point being that it's not the means of selection that's important to this scenario, but what you're choosing between.

Now to add a little more context to your electing Hitler example, how would not voting have helped?

And yeah, Hitler was bad, but what if it had been the Communists that had won, and a true alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union had been in existence? Could that have been worse? The real decision here is between alternative outcomes, or our best estimate of what they'll be. I don't think you were wrong for voting for John Howard because he turned out to be worse than you thought. You worked with the information you had available, and you made a choice based on what you considered to be important. The fact that the results were bad does not invalidate the process. Just like it doesn't invalidate reason because we can make mistakes.

"If they gave an election and no-one came, wouldn't they start listening to what people really wanted from them?"

Could you explain the causal connection? Since they get voted in either way, I don't see why they'd care. And since most people elected are not voted for by the majority of possible voters anyway, there's already the slap in the face. Elections are designed in a way that the candidate only needs to get more than his opponents. And practically speaking, it's the people that vote that you have to worry about, not the no-voters like you. You might try to attract some of them, but it would seem foolish to count on their support. You don't know if you'll ever get them to vote (apathy and laziness).

Now I don't know the European scenario, but we've had the same kind of "panic attacks" here in the States because of the low voter turn-out. But this is usually a ploy by the more socialist party (Democrats) to get uneducated, poor people to vote (since they usually get their votes). And what do you expect will happen when the vote gets too low? To my knowledge, there has never been a case of a politician stepping down from office because he didn't get enough people to vote for him.

You ask "If the bulk of Australians want Latham, what difference does my vote make?". You could ask some people in Florida that. But this is a different argument from what you were making. And it would equally apply to the idea of not voting. Since there are already tons of people who don't vote, your lack of vote carries less weight. And really, since there are usually less people voting than those voting, the value of your lack of vote is less than if you actually vote.

No, the real point is whether you can vote for someone who's not perfect, which means there's something you dislike about him. In other words, he's a "known evil", like the US. But I say you can support the US over Germany in WWII, and do it without giving unconditional support to every element there. If you choose to interpret your vote as an unconditional support, then the voting system would be impossible to use morally. But most things, if you interpreted it out of context, would be impossible to practice morally. If you buy food at a store, and people decided that meant that you fully endorsed the owner and all of his business or political beliefs, would you starve? Or would you reject it? Do you have to agree with every decision your friends make, giving them a full endorsement of every quality they have? I don't think so. If your not willing to use impossible and irrational standards for judging your choices in other aspects of your life, why do so in politics? If other people think that you're making a full endorsement, feel free to say that you're not. If they still believe it, their beliefs shouldn't matter to you.

And finally, you said "It makes the difference to me, in the end. If they want to sell the country down the drain, they can darn well do it without my consent or help."

I think you're only looking at half the picture here. Your seeing the problems that can happen when you vote for someone. But you can't evaluate those in a vacuum. Your choice isn't between Politician A and nothing. It's between Politician A and Politician B. The choice is between those two. Not voting is just giving the choice to other people (who probably disagree with your views). Given the context of the very real choice that's being made, your sentence comes off more as:

"If they want to sell the country down the drain, they can darn well do it without my consent or help...or resistance."

Now let me tell you my view. My view is that politics is not going to lead us to freedom. We need a cultural revolution. And that means Objectivism. Until the culture changes, it's going to always be bad. Politics can buy us time. So voting for the lesser of two evils is fine by my choice. If you assume the country is plunging into Statism, then by all means slow it down. And where appropriate, try to turn it around.

Post 16

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 7:41pm

Link

Edit

Excellent work Cass!

To Joe,

I agree with Cass's idea simply because of how this ties into the issue of compromise. I believe that both Kerry and Bush are the wrong in princple to lead this country as their advocated policies would bring disaster. It does not matter who is the lesser of two evils or who will do the less harm. When you vote for a candidate merely because you think that he will do less evil than his opponent, you are still voting for evil and not for the good. When you vote not for the right candidate, but for the less harmful one you throw your vote away. Neither Bush nor Kerry deserve my vote, and I will not give it to either one of them.

Adam Buker

Post 17

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 8:32pm

Link

Edit

Adam,

I can't see at all what you mean by compromise. What are you compromising by voting between the lesser of two evils? It sounds like your suggesting an alternative, which is fantasy. And voting is a compromise between a fictional ideal world and reality. But I'm sure that's not what you meant.

Once again, ethics is about making choices. When you have two choices that aren't very good, and you choose the better of the two, you're not at all saying that you like either choice, or that you prefer them to some alternative that isn't possible. If your starving and given a choice between lima beans and liver (pick two foods you dislike if you prefer), you're not saying that you think lima beans is the best possible food.

And since you hopped in, are you suggesting that you wouldn't vote for the US over Nazi Germany? That it would be a "compromise"? That voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil, and not good?

If there are two choices, and you pick the better choice, you are in fact choosing good, despite how evil they are.

And if, given only those two choice, you abdicate your choice to others, then you are essentially voting for the most evil. You're standing aside and saying you won't oppose evil, and you'll count on others to do it. This is the real vote for evil.

Post 18

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 9:25pm

Link

Edit

Adam, you believe that neither Bush nor Kerry deserve your vote, and you will not vote for either of them. The question in my mind is: Does America deserve a vote for Bush, or for Kerry? I'm voting for Bush because I believe, first and foremost, that he is the man equipped to lead the country against the threat of Islamo-fascism and that Kerry's waffling would be disastrous in a time of war. Kerry is a hopelessly weak and indecisive man; it would be as dangerous to have such a man in the White House during wartime as to have a weak and vacillating general on the front lines.

Whatever you may think of Bush, surely the time to mount an all-out attack against those domestic policies of which you disapprove is when we are living in relative peace, not when, in an age of weapons of mass destruction, we must deal with a concerted attempt to annihilate us on the part of perhaps millions of religious fanatics.

Post 19

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 9:51pm

Link

Edit

And, yes, I like the emphasis on personal responsibility, but I'm not too keen on the pietist religious streak that leads Bush to see "faith-based initiatives" as the way to achieve it.

Watch the convention closely, Chris. The pattern of socially liberal Republican luminaries as opposed to the socially conservative "grass roots" implies that the Republican party will be socially conservative as long as the party is ridden with what an Anglican would identify as "disobedience" - meaning, a general assessment of the luminaries of the party as fops.

Things are beginning to change in the political culture. Despite Gov. Schwartzenegger's announced dichotomy between Democrats (the party of hierarchy) and Republicans (the party of pluralism), there is a me-too elements which can invoke the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt for the sake of pushing the "Republican vanguard." This would be attractive to disgruntled ex-Kennedyites who see JFK as either a wuss or a disgusting slob at heart.

In fact, "T.R. Republicanism" might be the most attractive variety of me-too'ism for the present. Not only does it tap into yearnings for "glory under decency," the mee-too'ist criticism can be knocked away by claiming that the Democrats are trying to me-too T.R. It would result in an interesting squeeze play if Kerry was called a "wannabe T.R."

[Here I should stop; I seem to be meddling again.]