I live in rowhouse land. A city block in an old part of an old city – mostly gentrified and made hip in the early part of the decade, but with enough longtime residents, shops, and local customs to have kept some measure of authenticity. I’m part of the gentrification boom. I’m under 30, from the suburbs, and I bought a freshly rehabbed one-bedroom alley-house three years ago.

There’s an elderly woman who lives about half a block up from me, and in the warm months, she sits on her stoop almost every day and makes polite conversation with passersby. Always a smile, always a nice comment, and I always return the nicety and go on my way.

When I walk a couple blocks south, I usually find a heavy-set middle-aged man wearing a veterans cap sitting on his front steps. He’s a bit grumpier than the elderly woman – the smile doesn’t come as easily – but he always says hello, and he’s usually surrounded by neighbors who’ve come out onto their front steps, cheap domestic beer in hand. There are a few young children (maybe grandkids?) who play in an inflatable pool they set up on the sidewalk. Nobody seems to be talking about anything of much importance, just enjoying the company on a pleasant summer night – probably as they did last year, the year before, etc…

Decades ago (maybe pre-boomer?) I imagine this was the default. If you weren’t part of this kind of scene, you were just “weird” or antisocial. Nobody cared about introversion, nobody cared about a person’s capacity for small talk (probably nobody even used the phrase “small talk,” instead likely referring to it as “conversation.”) You became friends with people because they lived nearby, not because of shared interests. Now we’re more sensitive – people are wired differently, and not everyone will communicate in the same ways. Let people find their niche. And I guess that’s supposed to be progress. But I don’t know. I’m shy around strangers.  I like my privacy.  I sometimes have a hard time with small talk. And I find myself wishing pretty often now that I hadn’t grown up in an era where that was accepted and coddled – the “self-esteem generation” (to steal a phrase).

It’s not that I think everyone should conform to a set standard – that we should all be extroverted small-talkers who sit on the stoop and bemoan the yupsters, hipsters, intellectuals and artists who have taken over a big chunk of the neighborhood. I just think it would’ve been nice to have been raised in an environment where, instead of having it reinforced that it’s okay not to fit in, I had been tossed into the lion’s den and taught that I wasn’t so special. Maybe if my entire generation had been taught that lesson, there’d be a bit more social diversity at these impromptu summer neighborhood gatherings. We’d probably have a lot to learn from each other.

Anyway, it’s a bit Utopian, I guess, and the truth is we’re not going back. People like me move in, and maybe we admire the “old ways” from a distance (or maybe we patronize them like a city couple vacationing in the country commenting on how “cute” everything is). But admire or patronize, we don’t join in. I walk past, I say something to the elderly woman about the weather, nod to the guy with the veterans cap and hope for a smile. Then I go on my way. I wouldn’t have the first clue how to become a part of that world… nobody ever told me I had to.

… the people walking around the harbor today with the “Green Monstah” T-shirts leaving the stadium quickly and quietly.

… people watching the game at the Tam in Boston paying their tab, walking to the T and whining about Masterson, Saito, Papelbon…

… being at the game tonight surrounded by obnoxious Red Sox fans at “Fenway South” at the moment Jason Bay swung through strike 3.

Wish I’d been there.

You wouldn’t think so… I mean, Norm Coleman conceded to Al Franken giving Democrats a 60th vote, U.S. troops are withdrawing from Iraq, and in the biggest news of all, my Orioles are 1 out away from winning a game against the Red Sox in which they had trailed 10-1.

Still, none can match the entertainment value of three headlines featured on CNN.com:

1. Squirrel pops out of cleavage
2. Naked flight crew creates safety video
3. Guy jumps from helicopter onto marlin?

Guess the guy on the helicopter missed the the safety video.

Last out!  Orioles win!

I like Judge Sotomayor.  I think she was a great pick, think she is likely to be confirmed without too much trouble, and I’m not the least bit surprised (or outraged) by any of the back and forth about her.

But, I start getting philosophically tangled up when the general debate on court appointees breaks down along the “don’t legislate from the bench” vs. “living, breathing document” dichotomy.

Do liberals actually believe that a progressive court doesn’t legislate from the bench?  Do we acknowledge that it does, and then think that’s a good and logical way to make law?  I always kinda thought that was just an argument we used because we tended to agree with the Court’s more interpret-y (read: policy-making) decisions.  I know I always said it with a bit of a wink, and a full awareness of the hypocrisy (remember how liberals and conservatives seamlessly swapped judicial philosophies during the Bush v. Gore case?  We didn’t miss a beat then.)

But, if we want to be candid about it, federal court justices are unelected; they are further removed from the will (or even the world) of the people, and interpreting law is sometimes making law.  So yeah, historically liberals have used the Supreme Court as an end run around the democratic process to meet worthy goals.

The problem is we are left with no choice.  The court has been the only available avenue to actually make the Constitution the “living, breathing document” it was meant to be.  In an ideal world, those same worthy goals could be added in legislatively, and the Constitution could be easily amended to keep up with contemporary standards.  Then, strict constructionists could be appointed to the Courts to narrowly enforce the laws in accordance with an actual “living, breathing document.”

Seems there are two reasons this argument is never made:

Reason #1:  It’s impractical and a fairly useless theoretical argument.

True.

Reason #2:  Too many people lack vision , and get caught up in the current context of the debate.

Most liberals can’t imagine Constitutional amendments being used for anything other than taking rights away.  The Court is the check on “mob-rule,” and the “mob,” in their minds, will always be an impediment to progressive change.  They don’t even seem to have enough faith in the rightness of their ideas to believe those ideas will prevail.  They never take into account changing demographics or consider the possibility of being able to make fundamental progressive change through the democratic process – change that isn’t dependent on the mood of the Court.  When did liberals become so… conservative?

Now, at heart, I am a pragmatist, so useless theoretical arguments aside, I’m swayed by Reason #1.  I’ll continue with my wink-and-smile support for an activist Court, as if the Court is the only way to achieve the “living, breathing” aspect of the Constitution.  If the only way to make positive change in the present is to continue to play this silly game, count me in.  Just don’t try to convince me it makes a bit of sense democratically.

What a fun turn the Republican Party has taken…

Over the weekend, Lindsey Graham was heckled at the South Carolina Republican Convention for urging the Party to embrace moderates who can “win in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.”  Interesting, but not surprising.  Of course, it does make for an odd Senate delegation from South Carolina: Jim DeMint said recently that he would “rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.”  Guess that would exclude Graham.

But, that wasn’t the part that interested me.  Naa… I perked up another part of Graham’s convention speech that drew jeers:

I am not a libertarian. If you are, you’re welcome to vote for me and build this party, but we’re not going to build this party around libertarian ideas.

Then he added,

Ron Paul is not the leader of this party.

I guess the crowd was on the Revolution bandwagon, because a bunch of people booed and shouted back, “Yes he is.”

Oh, I so hope they’re right.

At least one other person also hoped they were right, although for a very different reason.  Governor Mark Sanford was quoted just after Graham’s speech as saying:

There was almost a pejorative comment a moment ago. Sen. Graham spoke and said ‘I’m not a libertarian,’ whatever, whatever, as if that’s an evil word. Liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment … People say, you know, ‘Mark, you’re kind of libertarian,’ you know, and they say it as if it’s an evil word, like you’re a communist or something. I’m like: Throw me in that briar patch … I’ve been accused of being a libertarian and I wear it as a badge of honor.

And all of this is on the heals of Ron Paul’s son, Rand (yup… Rand Paul) announcing he was forming an exploratory committee to challenge Jim Bunning in Kentucky’s Senate primary.  Rand Paul.  Family of nutjobs, apparently.

Seriously.  They have Michael Steele as front-man, Dick Cheney playing creepy defense, the Club for Growth knocking the non-Gekko Republicans out of primaries and a family of Objectivists being cheered on at Republican Conventions.  Do they do this for my amusement?

And once again, The Creepy:

The Creepy

Watching Arlen Specter on Meet the Press right now: this is one of the least confidence-inspiring interviews I’ve seen on this show.

Specter seems to so intent on “proving” he won’t change his positions, that he has absolutely nothing to say to Democrats.  He’s still against the Employee Free Choice Act, would oppose (seemingly any) comprehensive health care plan, and denied a quote in the Wall Street Journal in which he assured the President he would be a “loyal Democrat.”  He bragged about voting against Obama’s budget the day after he switched parties, and when asked what his core political values were, he said: “Freedom and a woman’s right to choose” before launching into a story about his father. Really encapsulated the Party there, Arlen.

Oh yeah, and he thinks he’s “entitled” to maintain his seniority in the Senate and leapfrog actual loyal Democrats like Tom Harkin for Committee assignments.  In fact, entitled might be the word I’d use to describe his entire attitude.

I hope Sestak does jump into the race.  I know Obama and Reid and Rendell are all backing Specter, but I would think a sizable enough percentage of Pennsylvania Democratic Primary voters are seeing this the way I’m seeing it, and could make it an interesting race.

Only bright spot?  He did take a passing shot at the Club for Growth… but even that was a criticism for going after Republicans in Primaries rather than hitting them for their actual message in governing.

This is actually a mini-project I started working on a while back and then forgot about…

As Bush was preparing to leave office, his Cabinet/staff/friends/allies were working to defend his legacy in the face of historically low public approval numbers. There were the inevitable comparisons to the rising stock of Harry Truman who left office with a 31% approval rating, and is now considered to be one of the greatest Presidents in history, ranking 5th on the all-time list in a survey done by historians in January. Truman has ALWAYS been the example for politicians burdened by low approval ratings and looking for some consolation in a potential legacy.

Anyway, it made me wonder if the Truman example was a good precedent or the exception to the rule. I looked up the approval ratings at the time of leaving office for Truman and every President since.

Truman – 31%
Eisenhower – 59%
Kennedy* – 59%
Johnson -45%
Nixon – 23%
Ford -54%
Carter -33%
Reagan – 57%
H.W. Bush -49%
Clinton -63%
W. Bush – 30%

So, in order of best to worst according to public opinion at the end of the term:

Clinton
Kennedy
Eisenhower
Regan
Ford
H.W. Bush
Johnson
Carter
Truman
W. Bush
Nixon

Now, the same Presidents rankings in that January survey by historians:

Truman – 5
Eisenhower – 8
Kennedy – 6
Johnson – 11
Nixon – 27
Ford – 22
Carter – 25
Reagan – 10
H.W. Bush – 18
Clinton – 15
W. Bush – 36

So, in best to worst according to the historians:

Truman
Kennedy
Ike
Reagan
Johnson
Clinton
H.W. Bush
Ford
Carter
Nixon
W

How right was the public?

Pretty close actually.

• Excepting for the top spot (which the historians gave to Truman and the public choosing Clinton), the next three were perfectly in line: Kennedy, Ike, Reagan.
• The bottom two spots belonged to Nixon and W, with the public putting Nixon below W and the historians flipping the two.
• The public wasn’t crazy about Carter as he was leaving office, and history hasn’t been much kinder: Carter ranked 4rd to last (among these Presidents) according to the people, and 3rd to last according to historians – with Truman’s rise from the bottom tier to the top tier explaining the discrepancy.
• Ford, H.W. Bush and LBJ all fell somewhere in the middle, according to both measures.

In fact, aside from the Truman example, the only real discrepancy in ranking between the public and historians lies with Bill Clinton, who fell from the top spot with the public to somewhere in the mushy middle with historians.

Overall, while legacies can change, it looks like the immediate reaction is usually pretty accurate. Probably a bad sign for those Bush allies.

*obviously “left office” under different circumstances, and assuming the final poll numbers were put together before the assassination, they were likely much more indicative of average concerns of the day, rather than the  more general reflection that usually accompanies the final weeks of a term. The same can be said to some extent of Nixon’s numbers.

Just an annoyance:

I’ve been watching some of the fallout from the Specter switch on MSNBC and I can’t help but notice a complete disconnect between my definition of the far-right Republican base and the commentators’ definition of the Party’s base. Let me see if I have my facts right: 1) Arlen Specter was being challenged in the Republican Primary by Pat Toomey, former director of the Club for Growth; 2) The Club for Growth is an economically Right-wing group that came out of the libertarian CATO Institute; 3) Specter had come under attack from Republicans for voting in favor of Obama’s stimulus bill.

So, what about Specter’s switch yesterday demonstrated the power of the social/religious conservatives within the Republican Party? Why has MSNBC had Michael Smerconish on every 30 minutes to argue that Republicans are losing moderates because the Party leaders and base aren’t “libertarian” enough (and that if they would stay away from social issues and focus on economic conservatism, they would hold Senators like Specter)? Why does Chris Matthews believe this is further evidence that the Republican Party is becoming a “religious party?” Even Howard Dean got in the act with some convoluted explanation about the Club for Growth becoming Right-wing because they had to take on the smorgasbord of Republican social issues. Howard Dean! The “tax-hiking, government expanding” target of the Club for Growth ad five years ago! It’s not like Pat Toomey came out of the Family Research Council or the Christian Coalition.

As for the base of the Party, it seems to me that the assorted bag of nutjobs who gathered around the country a couple weeks ago were there to protest taxes, not abortion. They threw tea bags, not Bibles. The C-PAC convention a couple months ago? Their beef was socialism, not godlessness.

I just don’t get how the economic conservatives can always skate by in the media with an assumption of rationality, and the crazies on the Right are always sorted with the religious fundamentalists. That’s not a defense of said fundamentalists – they certainly have their share of crazies – but I don’t think they own the exclusive rights. It must drive the Club for Growth crazy too… they’ve worked so hard to take down any Republican who doesn’t want to spit on poor people, and they get no credit for it.

There was one bright spot. On Hardball last night, Hendrik Hertzberg went appropriately retro in quoting an interview he did with Mike Huckabee a little over a year ago. On what Huckabee termed the “Club for Greed”:

They have a disregard for the realities of having to actually govern, when you have a broad array of responsibilities. Governing would be very simple under their formula. It wouldn’t require an I.Q. above broccoli to do it, because you simply go in and you say, . . .We’re going to eliminate all the taxes.’ The budget is very simple. You don’t really make any decisions. You don’t manage or govern. You operate essentially like a vending machine: you put in the money and you get out limited government, and you don’t care if it hurts somebody.

He also referred to them as “cowardly” and as a “despicable political hit organization.”

Wow… I miss primary season.

Aside from Hertzberg, no guest made any distinction between the cultural Right and the economic Right. Specter was apparently forced out of the Republican Party because he’s pro-choice, which I guess just never caught up to him in the previous three decades of being a pro-choice Republican Senator.

Now, I’m all for a shrinking Republican Party that can’t compete in the Northeast. Or the mid-Atlantic. Or the West Coast. Or the rust belt. Or the Southwest. That’s all just fine with me. But, credit where credit is due: the Republican Party has become a far-Right libertarian extremist Party dominated by the Club for Growth. And that seems to be the take-away lesson from yesterday’s switch.

On a sidenote, while I’m glad Democrats picked up the PA seat, I really can’t stand disloyalty.

Lindsay Graham: (on the pressure conservatives are putting on moderate Republicans) “I don’t want to be a member of the Club for Growth.”

Guess he won’t be doing too many fundraisers for Pat Toomey…

There were too many things going right with this sentence not to pull it out…

“For one day, and probably only one day, Baltimore’s Camden Yards was transformed from the funeral home of a bumbling franchise to the raucous center of a populist rebellion.”

Actually, the full column (by Ken Rosenthal) is worth a read (even if he did mean it snarkily).

Other favorite people yesterday:

Adam Jones – for the game and the pre-game quote
The guy who did the Jeffrey Maier impression for Cesar Izturis
Mark Teixiera, for having the decency to fail miserably in his Yankee debut
Ernie Tyler – 50 straight Opening Days!
Joe Biden, for throwing out the first pitch and then greeting Ernie Tyler
Orioles fans, for outnumbering Yankee fans at Camden Yards for a day