Among the Political Scientists
I‘m back from a day and a half at the American Political Science Association’s annual meeting in Philadelphia, and here are the highlights: breakfast with an old friend at the Down Home Diner in Reading Terminal Market; dinner with several political scientists/TWS contributors at the 117-year old Dante & Luigi‘s at 10th and Catharine; and lunch with my friend John DiIulio at Susan’s and my old favorite, Marra’s, on E. Passyunk in South Philly, where, it turns out, John’s parents had their first date just before World War II. I’ve been to Philly three times this summer, for a family occasion, the Democratic convention, and now the political science convention. Each time, I’d just resolved to begin to diet. It turns out Philly is the city where diets go to die. They should call it The City of Brotherly Eating. But for the foreseeable future, I have no plans to be in Philadelphia. So health and svelteness beckon!
Meanwhile, you ask, what wisdom did I imbibe, what intellectual breakthroughs did I learn of from the thousands of political scientists assembled in the Philadelphia Convention Center and various nearby hotels?
My answer: THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
I will say, however, that the two panels I participated in were interesting–no thanks to me, but to panelists like Jim Ceaser of the University of Virginia, Rogers Smith of Penn, and Bill Voegeli of the Claremont Institute. Both panels were 2016-election related, and it was good to have a chance to step back from the fray and hear others’ thoughts on the meaning of what’s happened, and what lessons might be drawn. I want to think more about some of their arguments–but I’d say the panels had the general effect of making me more convinced than ever that a major re-thinking of many things, from the presidential nominating process to likely next steps for conservatism, will be necessary after November 8th. Speaking of November 8th, probably the best line from one of the participants was this: “If God had wanted us to vote, He’d have given us better candidates.”
Meanwhile, to file under the heading of “Gee, we’re getting old!” I checked into my hotel near City Hall, the lobby of which is a converted old and grand bank building. I asked the desk clerk when the hotel had taken over from the bank, and she said she wasn’t sure, but “It was ages and ages ago.” Since I actually remembered that building as a functioning bank, this would imply that I lived in Philly in pre-historic times. Of course, in a way I did: A moment’s thought told me that if the building was converted a few years after I left Philly, that would still have been before the young lady handling check-ins was born. Tempus fugit, and all that. (I couldn’t remember where that expression comes from, so I of course went to Wikipedia. It’s from Virgil’s Georgics (Book 3, line 284), and the original is fugit inreparabile tempus: “it escapes, irretrievable time”. Virgil could write.)
* * *
ADVERTISEMENT
* * *
Trump makes a race of it
Speaking of time, it’s been two weeks since I wrote in this newsletter:
What galvanized my sense that it’s premature to say the election is over was Sunday’s Washington Post. This was the lead story on page 1: “With comfortable lead, Clinton starts refining an agenda.” The article was all about how–with the election virtually in the bag–Clinton was already planning her governing and legislative priorities. I regard such a piece as a reliable contrarian indicator; demonstrations of that kind of confidence, not to say complacency, tend to correlate with a trend in the opposite direction. So I rather expect to see Trump gain some in the polls in the next week or two.
I’ve been wrong so often this election cycle, I feel I should note this instance of being, at least in short-term, right. The Post piece was in fact a contrarian indicator. Clinton’s six-point lead has been cut to less than four points in the couple of weeks since, and there is at least mild momentum in Trump’s direction. That momentum may well not be sustainable–not by Trump. But I always come back to the dynamics of a “change” election: Swing voters are looking for an excuse to support the challenger, not the representative of the status quo. And Hillary Clinton hasn’t even made a token effort to say what changes she’d bring about as president. Which means she’s betting everything on disqualifying Trump, or on Trump disqualifying himself. It’s a good bet, but not a certain one.
* * *
Read Matt Labash!
Meanwhile, you deserve some good reading that’s not about Trump or Clinton. (Though on Clinton’s appalling dishonesty and dissimulation, I do recommend Steve Hayes’s editorial in the new issue and Shannen Coffin’s weekend post on her kid-glove treatment by the Department of Justice.) So in the spirit of rising above the ignorant armies clashing by night, we’re proud to bring you a new online column from the incomparable Matt Labash–called, imaginatively, “Ask Matt Labash.” As far as advice columns go, it’s definitely the funniest (if not perhaps the most useful). Take a look at the first two installments here and here (the second has a question from me, which Labash answers with appropriate deference and respect). And do feel free too send Matt a question of your own at [email protected], or fill out the form on our site , where there’s also an archive of the column. We’ve had lots of good stuff online recently–e.g. this piece by Chris Caldwell explaining what was at stake in yesterday’s German election, or this from Andy Ferguson–but Labash’s contributions are…unusual.
* * *
Brad Snyder
Finally, if you want to be cheered up and inspired, here’s an excellent piece from Sunday’s Washington Post Sports section on Brad Snyder, who was blinded by an IED in Afghanistan when serving as Navy lieutenant, and is now a Paralymplics swimming champion. It’s a tale of sacrifice and character, one that can and should remind us that America’s not just a land of Trumps and Clintons.
* * *
Onward!
Bill Kristol
