2006 Jackass Of The Year: George Allen
It’s a little unfair to name George Allen the Jackass of the Year; for one, I don’t really think he’s a jackass. He did run a very troubled campaign in 2006, though, and as such, I’m giving him the award as a kind of surrogate for all Republican candidates, rather than pull a TIME-type generic cop-out.
Not that he didn’t have jackassian moments, though: 2006 will forever be remembered as the year ‘macaca’ entered the national vocabulary. The obscure racial slur serves as a symbol of a campaign that was rough, ragged, and full of highs and lows. Had George Allen kept his temper, and not lashed out, he might very well have retained his seat and with it, Republican control of the Senate.
Allen attempted to recover, though, and he did some smart things, like hire the great Jon Henke and return to the issues. He was solid on Iraq and the economy (indeed, on the economic front, he did as well as any Republican candidate), and for a time he rebounded. Bloggers such as myself rallied around the man and the cause, sensing that Virginia was crucial to Republican chances of holding the Senate.
The campaign slid off the high path again, though, as Allen and his handlers, in desperation, latched on to some old fictional writings of his opponent, James Webb (more on him in a minute) as if they had any relevance (as opposed to Webb’s retrograde stance on women and the military, which was both relevant and in the realm of nonfiction). There was a bizarre interlude regarding Allen’s Jewish heritage that was played weirdly by both sides, and the race more and more became just a mess.
None of this might seem sufficient for giving Allen this year’s dubious award (with the possible exception of the ‘macaca’ incident). It was the effect, however, more than the cause, that determined this year’s winner. For, by losing control of his mouth, and by running an inconsistent, ragged campaign, Allen did more than throw away his Presidential ambitions; he even did more than throw away the Senate.
It wasn’t just any Democrat that beat Allen, but rather a specific one. James Webb is an unabashed populist ‘fair trader’ whose economic views don’t just border on socialism, they embody them. Webb is one of a number of newly elected Democrat Senators who have adopted this ‘fair trade’ economic foolishness as a rallying cry (Sherrod Brown of Ohio is also prominent in this respect), and on the domestic front, there is no more dangerous enemy we face.
“Fair trade” policies will kill the American economy. It’s as simple as that. Globalization can no more be stopped than time can be reversed…and for opening the door that much wider to potentially disastrous economic policies, George Allen is, despite himself, the 2006 Jackass of the Year.
[...] Other interesting posts and year-end stuff: Blue Crab Boulevard Jules Crittenden Decision ‘08 Dappled Things Happy Catholic Scribal Terror Oh How I Love Jesus Englishman in New York Central Sanity Cartago Delenda Est Classical Values Ankle Biting Pundits Doug Ross Closed Cafeteria Musing Minds Michelle Malkin Irish Pennants Wide Awake Cafe Thoughts of a Regular Guy [...]
He like most of the other Republicans who lost felt safe in their seats and so they did not attempt to campaign strongly until it was to late. I hope that is the lesson that was learned and those who hope to re-take and or run for the first time get out early and often in 2007. I believe the Dems will give much fodder for those who want to run.
James Webb may not be a free trader, but there is no connection between endorsing protectionism and being a socialist. Socialism is based on the government owning the means of production. There is no evidence to suggest that Webb subscribes to that belief.
I don’t agree with that description…that’s communism…socialism is predicated on government attempting to equalize outcomes, and that’s just what Webb is all about…
Wikipedia splits it down the middle: “As an economic system, socialism is often associated with state, community or worker ownership of the means of production.”
So presumably you could have a socialist country which does not own the means of production, and I stand corrected.
You could also have a socialist country which is a devout practitioner of free trade. My point was that there is no intrinsic connection between socialism and being for or against free trade.
As for equalizing outcomes: there is a distinction between equalizing outcomes (e.g., socialism) and equalizing opportunity (e.g., universal access to free education). I’m not aware of anything Webb has said advocating equal outcomes for everyone, regardless of ability or effort.
Calling for a change in the tax code to increase rates on high incomes may or may not be a good idea, but it is not socialist. In the 1940′s and 1950′s, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. I’m not sure that anyone would consider the Truman or Eisenhower administrations to be hotbeds of socialism.
Yes, indeed, you could have a socialist country where the means of production are not owned by the state – we call it Europe.
If you want to believe that capitalism and ‘fair trade’ can co-exist, that’s of course your prerogative, but it won’t fly in these quarters…
We protect the domestic steel, agricultural, sugar, cotton, airline, media, textile, and defense industries from foreign competition, either through tariffs or restricting foreign access to these industries — we protect American companies from being acquired by foreign companies (e.g., Unocal) — would you say that capitalism and “fair trade” co-exist in America?
Well, look at what it does to American industry where it does exist – how are the airlines doing? The U.S. steel industry? Textiles? How about the auto industry?
It is exactly those areas where ‘fair trade’ predominates that have shriveled to the point of extinction…
I’m not arguing for protectionism — only making the point that capitalism and managed trade co-exist here and elsewhere. I lived in Hong Kong when it was still a British colony — at that time, it was the premier example of laissez-faire capitalism, and had a robust and growing economy. I’m for free trade all the way: the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.
Also, implying that the Democrats are against free trade and Republicans are for it is inaccurate, although there are a lot of troubling remarks made by the current freshman class in Congress. Most of the examples I cited were not protected (or were protected to a far less degree) during the Clinton Presidency than since Bush assumed office. Even the Wall Street Journal cheered Clinton’s free trade policy. I think that the Clinton-Rubin economic policies are the surest way to grow our economy and the world economy.
Peter, I didn’t say ‘Democrats’ were against free trade. I said James Webb and Sherrod Brown, among others, are…and they quite transparently fit the bill…Bill Clinton was pretty good on the economy, but that’s the past. Look at the present, and your favored party is not coming off nearly as well…
[...] Those of you who read my piece lamenting the bungled George Allen campaign may recall I singled out the hiring of Jon Henke as a notable exception. Apparently I’m not the only one who feels that way, as Jon has just been named the New Media Director for the Republican Communications Office in the Senate. [...]
I think the Democrats are split on the free trade-protectionist issue — and more generally between Robert Rubin economics and Lou Dobbs economics — hopefully they will coalesce around the former and njot the latter –
Around The Blogosphere And Open Trackback #37: Server Outage Edition
The “Server Outage” edition in the continuing saga of interesting and thought provoking news from around the web. After this weeks server outage I’m going to roundup some stories I, and you, may have missed. This is a long one…