GOP in CA trying not to be losers

Two of the last five Republican presidents were from California. This state used to be fairly conservative. Someone once explained to me that Richard Nixon was very effective exploiting Communism in the 1950's because Californians were worried about being invaded by China. I thot that was ridiculous, until I realized the historical context. In the 1950's, America was just a few years away from fighting a war across the Pacific, with Japan, and across another ocean, the Atlantic. And communist China was a close ally with the Soviet Union. So worrying about fighting a war against the Russians in Europe and against the Chinese across the Pacific (and with the Russians across the Pacific) was a very real threat. I'm sure it's one reason there is a huge naval base in San Diego, and why there are still lots of aerospace and defense companies in LA.

Both of those threats, of course, are long gone, even though China is still technically communist. And California is now much less conservative. The Republican party in California has never really recovered - it's in pathetic shape. The only powerful Republican is the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he's in office because of his personal star power, not because of the state GOP. Which he barely gets along with.

Some Republicans are trying to change this. George Skelton in the LA Times writes about a new group being formed, California Republicans Aligned for Tomorrow, or CRAFT. A number of prominent moderate Republicans in CA - yes, they exist - are finally unhappy enough with the right wing that they are doing something about it. How different are they? Try to imagine this coming out of Dick Cheney's mouth:

"We need to run more women, more Asians, more Latinos and other ethnic
candidates," [GOP consultant Kevin Spillane] says. "White men are a distinct minority in this state. Clearly, a conventional Republican -- a WASP male -- is at a serious disadvantage. The ideal candidate is someone Latino or Asian, someone different."

Wow. Multiculturalism finally gets to the Republican party.

Skelton doesn't go into the issue that this inevitably raises - how do the conservatives feel about this? Probably about the same way that Kos feels about the DNC - as if they are betraying the true faith. This is just the beginning of this phase of the cycle. Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, but the issue is not the issues - it's the personalities of the candidates. Democrats will resolve this peacefully and, hopefully, gracefully, soon. The conflict within the GOP is just beginning. This group will inevitably score its share of victories. But making Republicans electable in California? Good luck on that one, guys.

Great stuff in the LA Times

I have a backlog of very cool articles that I found in the LA Times over the past couple of weeks. Instead of posting about them individually, I'm going to put them all in one post. Hopefully this works.

First, some nostalgia for the Baseball Encyclopedia, published in 1969. An effort to set the record straight about history and records, it wasn't entirely successful; some things are lost to history. The book itself, however, made a bit of history: it was "the first American trade book to be typeset entirely by computer." This review also resolved, for me, the question of asterisks next to records: no. Moral debates and records should be kept separate for their separate purposes:

It is the job of the scholar, not the record keeper, to provide context to the game's narrative; an unadulterated statistical register is critical to that task.

On the Op-Ed page a couple of days ago, our erstwhile governor, Arnold, wrote about why he opposes a bill imposing restrictions on some California state pension funds. Apparently the bill would prohibit investment in some private equity funds that do business with selected sovereign wealth funds. This sounds like an obscure issue, and it is, but it's also fairly wide-ranging. It could affect hundreds of millions of dollars and relationships with a number of foreign countries. I haven't heard from the other side, but judging from this essay, I agree with Arnold. Sounds like a good idea going too far.

George Skelton, who covers Sacramento and therefore is in a position to be continuously disillusioned, yet continuously entertained, has a wish list for spring cleaning in the California legislature. It's not people that he wants to get rid of, although I'm sure he could think of a few, but structural and legal impediments to getting things done. The absurd two-thirds majority required for passing money bills, term limits, gerrymandering, closed primaries, initiatives. Get rid of them, or dramatically change them. Ain't none of it gonna happen for a while, but what's politics without impossible dreams?

Gregory Rodriguez, one of the only pundits I would describe as a radically centrist Democrat, spoke at a college in Mexico. The title of his column says a lot: "A 670-mile-long shrine to American insecurity." Attempting the very difficult task of bridging the cultural barriers, he tried to answer this question from a student:

"How," he said politely in Spanish, "could such a rich and powerful country be so self-centered as to build a wall on its border to keep people out?"

That's a good question. Rodriguez uses it to dive into the contradictory impulses of America, at once powerful, belligerent, arrogant, and yet insecure. One of the best pieces on immigration I've read in a while.

One of the things that the editors of the LA Times understand is that in this town, coverage of the entertainment industry better be first-rate, or at least better than most of what else is out there. Carina Chocano is an excellent recent addition to the movie reviewing team, and a great replacement for Manohla Dargis, who wrote for the LA Times for about a year before landing at that other Times, on the East Coast. Chocano is one of my favorite reviewers in the country. She had a particularly eloquent appreciation for Charlton Heston and the meaning of his career:

To behold Heston in chains, behind bars or even in a morally compromised situation was to behold the classical ideals of moral clarity, youthful vigor and civilization oppressed by the depraved, the primitive, the corrupt. He stood, he observed, he suffered. Heston's muscular body and hard, determined jaw were made to endure injustice, to absorb and transform it into virtuous action.

She manages to appreciate him for what he was way back then, nostalgic without being maudlin. And I think she got it exactly right.

Finally, from the human interest department, comes a story about a guy who served some serious time in prison, got out and turned his life around, but still struggles every day to stay on the straight and narrow. He developed a specific "convict code," sort of the ultimate tough-guy philosophy. But then it broke down, and he had to relearn how to live a normal life. It's almost like a Russian novel. But without the aristocracy.