Taking the oath

As every schoolchild in America knows, the end quickly came for Wallenstein when he had his officers take an oath to him personally rather than the Hapsburg emperor or Holy Roman Empire. The emperor understood the significance of the act immediately and responded.

In this U.S. polity, the people are sovereign and the equivalent offense would be an oath given to a person to the exclusion of the institutions of the people (the collective sovereign).

The end of Wallenstein having been immortalized in theatre, opera, literature, and painting, would-be oath givers like Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, et al, had to walk softly. Thus the Hitler oath for civil servants contains caveats:

I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to Adolf Hitler, Führer of the German Reich and people, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfill my official duties, so help me God.

The law and duties make this more than just about Hitler, you see. Likewise, Franco and the clerics:

I swear and promise to respect and make my clergy respect the chief of the Spanish State and the government established according to Spanish laws.

This kind of circumspection is not present in the current celebrity oath for Obama. Currently on viral video it reads:

I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind because together we can, together we are, and together we will be the change that we seek.

It is a simple oath: I pledge... because...

This is even more trouble than Hitler and Franco were willing to ask for.

Best totalitarian headline of the day

From Time magazine, "Barack Obama's Inaugural Address: Humility, Gratitude, Sacrifice."

Best totalitarian lines from the same story:

And then he brought it all together, the challenge and the duty and the promise: "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task." This was the day's catechism and call to arms.

We will perform our assigned duties gladly. There is nothing so satisfying as giving our all to the government's tasks.

The Serials: changes in news reporting

A popular meme on the right is that liberalism is losing newspapers their circulation. If it was ever true, it's not true now.

The slimmed down circulations have left papers with their core audience: middlebrows who buy bestsellers; who learn about trends from feature articles; who buy things based on lists and rankings; who search out tips on what to eat, to wear, and of course what to believe.

These middlebrow masses, listening to NPR, watching PBS, reading their newspapers and newsweeklies, are the bread and butter of an entire sector of the economy. The corporations who own and run big daily newspapers are very interested in pleasing this core audience. Expect papers to become more liberal as outlying demographics fall away. As costs are trimmed, one must serve the essential reader.

This dynamic is showcased in the changes happening at the newsweeklies Time and Newsweek. It's interesting to hear editors describe their patrons:

Meacham [a Newsweek editor] , wearing a dark sweater in his office overlooking Central Park, says that "we don't edit with the idea that there is a poor and uninformed reader out there who somehow needs illumination." He sees his audience as "the virtual Beltway," which he defines as people who watch Sunday talk shows, read newspapers and buy hardcover books.

Stengel [a Time editor], wearing a dark sweater in his office with a view of the Hudson River, says his philosophy, especially online, is "news for smart people. . . . We are arguably the best-known news brand in the world, and we want to leverage that."

Teaching point: Smart people buy hardcover books.

You have to translate "smart" here as brand-conscious consumers "who think they are smart," e.g. people of limited culture who are compensating with "must read," "must see," and "must hear," consumption. These tend to be high achievers, woefully overspecialized, whose hardcovers adorn some a prominent coffee table or bookshelf.

I remember during the last campaign, former Time editor Strobe Talbot's special friend, Hillary Clinton, stumbled over the pronunciation of President Medvedev's name settling on national TV for "Whatever." Mr. Whatever. Mrs. Clinton is that reader newsweeklies and newspapers must hold on to - someone not likely to have ever heard Medvedev's name in natural conversation, someone relying heavily on a trusted guide, an interpreter to help negotiate politics, culture, art, and technology.

Consider ever-increasing leftiness the beginnings of a long circulation drive:

Stengel says his goal is to "make Time lead the conversation, not follow it. To speak stronger with a point of view. To mix more analysis with reporting. Not to ask questions, but to answer them on the cover"

Any attempt to shame news organs into professionalism by references to their conduct during the Obama-McCain race misses the changes taking place.

This is "the new normal." "Professionalism" means serving the news corporation's customers better.

Best totalitarian headline of the day

From the Toronto Star: "Obama touches every base for the masses."

Best totalitarian lines from the same story: "A hush fell. More words – 17 minutes of words. And the Poet-in-Chief hit every mark."

Runner up: "Where the teeming masses stood, the passing of power came as crescendo, with fluttering flags and frenzied joy."

News bulletin: The poet-in-chief inspires frenzied joy.

Natural conservatives

Judge Bork was being interviewed on C-Span this week when the president of the Federalist Society tried to pin the Burkean tag on him.

In his (usual) brusque way he shrugged it off opting for something else. Don't ask me what he called it because I became distracted by his example of what it is not. The current debate over "true conservatism" - an ideological construct - he noted is not for him and probably not for Burkeans or conservatives.

If you go to the newer election-inspired "conservative" blogs, you see a lot of this non-conservative paradigm hunting going on with all the jiggery pokery that calls up.

Ayn Rand's taunt, "Conserve what?" is germane here. Either you go down the path of philosophical analysis with Objectivist-like rigor and face the consequences or you declare yourself, as I do, someone who feels himself conservative. You don't split the difference by producing a half-baked paradigm (Libertarian Party) or by negotiating lists of "principles" that are platform planks (conservative splinter groups).

Unlike Ayn Rand or her target Bill Buckley or today's "true conservative" discussants, most of us are not building, defining, or even joining a movement. We are just being ourselves and "feeling conservative" is as far as many need to go. In arguments with the paradigm hunters, I am told that this attitude lets all sorts of Lincoln Chaffees lurk within the movement.

This is a "top-down" view of the issue. The bottom-up view is to let like minds associate for political benefit, then deal with trouble as it comes.

Bork's point, if I extrapolate a little here, is that there may be something we could call a natural political conservative.

We encounter so many natural (non-political) conservatives in daily life that I wonder why movement-minded people don't do something with them, as many of them are already affiliated or organized by interest. Think of those who own classic cars; who collect antiques; who restore buildings, who raise "heritage" breeds, who restore paintings. The list could go on. (Obviously in this matter, gun owners and shooters have already found their political voice.)

So there is real work available for those arguing out definitions of "true conservative." Why not organize natural conservatives instead?

What next?

The meme among refuseniks just now is that the Obama charm offensive is prelude to the boom being lowered. The policy boom, the tax boom, the agenda.

There is an implied change: Obama gets ugly.

I disagree. Based on this man's love of political theatre and the rewards he gets playing this way, the grandstanding, the "healing" gestures, the conservative outreach, all that stuff that generates a honeymoon for him will continue. The real dirty work will be done by the overt partisans in House and Senate. The White House will keep its distance. The inauguration will continue for four years.

At the same time, Obama has taken control of the party at the secondary level. The Clinton retreads may look influential but in true politruk style they have Obamans working under them, watching them, waiting to replace them. Count Clinton teamsters still in place a year from now.

And we know a new party-building effort is about to begin at the grassroots level using recent campaigners as its core. It promises a cult of personality that will cut out the political middlemen and place a vast political/cultural force directly at the disposal of our new boss.

As Obama plows through rosy accolades, we refuseniks will be getting the Rodney King treatment off to the side. Harry and Nancy have the truncheons ready as do the state Democrats.

This is really going to smart. We'll be fingering our achey lumps while meditating on those purists who sat out the last election.

Best totalitarian headline of the day

From today's Boston Globe, a New York Times Company: "Masses share in Obama's reward."

Best totalitarian line from the story: "Obama's declaration that his own historic rise is as one with America's past is an act of generosity - one that will give his country a new burst of strength."

The leader gives his people strength. The leader shares his rewards.

A trade called journalism

A front page article in today's Washington Times (written by Julia Duin) opens with, "A variety of religions will be whooping it up this weekend ..." It's part of a series called "Waiting for Obama."

Get your whoop on, holy man: Obama's coming to town.

In the Great Chain of Newspaper Being this remark about whooping religions passed through the desk editor, copy editor, and front page editor without incident before landing in the print shop.

Unfortunately, the print shop does not apply quality control to newspaper content. Perhaps that needs to change.

Nutshell department

From today's Daily Reckoning:

Finally, thanks to the worldwide financial meltdown that the U.S. central bank helped bring about, the politicians can take control of America's most important industries. The dreams of central planners, meddlers, world-improvers, collectivists, Bolsheviks, corporatists and fascists are all being realized - right in the United States of America. All industries need money. And the U.S. Treasury department has it. And what it doesn't have, the Fed will supply.

From Saturday's Valleywag:

Incompetence and infighting are endemic to nonprofits, of course. But Wikipedia's bureaucracy is distinctly, fearsomely awful. The site, which dictates the online reputation of countless living people and companies, itself operates by rules that are completely incomprehensible, determined by a self-appointed group of volunteer editors who can seldom stop arguing over obscurities to explain their ways to outsiders.

And some sure signs of recession: counterfeit Bentleys and Rollers on eBay.