My latest Seattle Times op-ed is online:

It has been about a year since I left Seattle for a Northern Virginia exurb in a fit of political angst, and the time allows for a bit of measured reflection about the change.

When I lived in Seattle, one of the city’s facets to which I quickly grew accustomed was the integration of Asian Americans into the city’s mainstream life. This was not surprising, of course. While Seattle does not boast a large number of Asians in absolute terms, they form the largest nonwhite population at over 13 percent of the total — a rarity outside Hawaii. [Snip]

Some of the same dynamics are at work in the fast-growing exurbs of Northern Virginia where I now live. The area has had explosive growth in the past several years, fueled by a strong economy, especially in the tech sector and the defense industry, as well as a business-friendly regulatory environment. What was once a sleepy rural area (perhaps akin to the outer Eastside of the Seattle area) now boasts affluent, ethnically diverse communities. [Snip]

The city’s life is overwhelmingly dominated by the industry of politics, which, unlike information technology, is an old business. It requires, by nature, discretion and even secrecy. Where trust and loyalty are at such a high premium, nepotism and clannishness are often rational responses, given that family and friends are generally more trustworthy than outsiders, however capable or intelligent.

Thus, it is not that there is significant racism against Asians. It is, rather, that the system erects a high barrier against late entrants, and Asian Americans tend to be late arrivals, particularly in political terms (a friend familiar with the entertainment industry observed something similar, and perhaps not coincidentally, politics is said to be show business for ugly people).

Read the whole thing here.

There is an excellent article today in The Christian Science Monitor about the differences between the Democrats and Republicans at the grassroots level (h/t RealClearPolitics):

The Democratic and Republican parties cultivate the grass roots quite differently. The GOP promotes its causes through naturally occurring community groups of like-minded people, such as conservative churches and pro-business associations. Democrats, however, often outsource their politics, relying on artificial, virtual networks and professional canvassers to evangelize their message and build their party.

That’s particularly ironic, because many Democrats oppose corporate outsourcing. There is nothing inherently wrong with their strategy; it is a successful method of contacting voters and bringing in money. But the repeated experience of painful losses on Election Day suggests it’s a flawed approach that’s hurting Democrats over the long term.

The Democratic Party and left-leaning political groups rely on outside organizations to hire young people who recruit members, collect funds, and contact constituents through quota-based pay systems. Since many hires don’t have strong ties to the places where they work, this approach to gaining support and getting out the vote fails to capitalize on existing personal bonds among like-minded Democrats.

These observations are right on the mark — as of today. In the past, the left, particularly communist and socialist groups, excelled at what is today called grassroots organization. Despite their flawed, and later clearly disproven, ideology, they continued to attract passionate members. Indeed, the very term “communist cell” evokes the organic, grassroots nature of their organizations (everyone involved in politics should read, for example, Mao Zedong’s “On Guerilla Warfare,” masterfully translated by Samuel Griffith; unlike poseurs like Che Guevara, Mao actually led a peasant communist organization to total victory in a long, difficult war and won power).

Read the rest of this entry »

To the long winding road
You left me standing here
- Paul McCartney

METRO has some of the smartest customers of any transit agency in the country. As a result, it should come as no surprise that after years of failing to heed their concerns over spotty bus service, at least some of those riders figured out a unique way to strike back

The fliers look official enough. They are 8 1/2 by 11 inches, have an official-looking Metro “M” logo and the number for a customer call center.

And they come with a sweet promise: Customers who call the transit agency to report a late bus will be rewarded with a free pass “good for ONE WHOLE WEEK of unlimited rides.”
……

“Standing out in all sorts of weather waiting for a late bus is no fun,” the flier states. “You rely on Metro to get you to work, to school, shopping, appointments — safely and ON TIME.

“We know that this route is chronically slow, and we need your help.”

I have felt those riders pain.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last week, the Washington Post confirmed the obvious . . . . that drivers in Northern Virginia and the D.C. Metro area generally, have one of the worst commutes in the nation.

Washington area workers are more likely to travel to jobs outside their home counties than commuters in any other region in the nation, according to a new study.

A higher percentage of Virginia residents live and work in different counties than commuters in any other state; Marylanders ranked second, according to “Commuting in America III,” a national report on commuting patterns and trends published yesterday by the Transportation Research Board.

The Washington region is second only to New York for the percentage of workers with “extreme commutes,” which the study defined as 90 minutes or more each way. Of the 12 counties with the highest percentage of long commutes, the region had three: Prince William, Prince George’s and Montgomery.

While traffic hasn’t really emerged as a major issue in the high profile Allen Webb campaign (they’ve decided to take the low road and focus on Senator Allen’s apparent penchant for racial slurs and Jim Webb’s fondness for pedophilia) it has emerged as an issue in our local congressional campaigns and will almost certainly be the leading issue in next years state elections.

As a resident and commuter in this area for almost 10 years, I have very definite opinions on the subject, having made the commute into D.C. from the McLean/Tyson’s Corner area in nearly every way possible.

Read the rest of this entry »

Conservatives are supposedly returning home to the GOP, kicking, screaming and whining. Paul Weyrich captures it best:

“It’ll all come down to conservatives,” he said. “For a long time, I’ve heard nothing but ‘I’m not going to vote for these jerks.’ Now I’m hearing ‘Well, I suppose we’ll have to vote the jerks back in and see what we can do.’ “

I share the sentiment. I have always recognized that politics is frequently about the lesser of two evils. Still, “vote for us, because we are not quite as bad as our opponents” is not exactly inspiring.

Of course, experts say people are several times more motivated by fear than by prospect of gain, so maybe there is something to that strategy. Perhaps that explains why the Democrats have been critizing the Bush administration without offering any concrete, workable alternatives of their own on Iraq.

A Harvard graduate student, also a mother, laments the anti-natalist environment that is Cambridge, Mass.

I was amused by the piece. Having lived in blue urban areas like NYC and Seattle (where dogs outnumber kids), I can understand the sense of isolation a “normal” person experiences in them. But I also lived in Iowa where I saw nothing except cows, pigs and children… lots of them.

And one does not need to go that far. Right here in Loudoun County where I live, pro-natalist sentiment rules. There are births galore in my neighborhood (in fact, three pregnancies in the past year in my small block alone). Maybe, just maybe, the fertile shall inherit the earth, eh?

Conservative Virginia readers will want to pay close attention to the Washington Post’s endorsement of Representative Frank Wolf, the long-serving Tenth District Republican.

Here is one of the highlights of the Post’s October 14, 2006 paean to the senior member of the House appropriations panel:

“It was chiefly at his prodding that Congress established a bipartisan commission on Iraq, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton, that represents the best hope at this point of forging a national consensus on how to proceed in the war.”

Last month, Insight Magazine quoted the congressman as saying:

“‘What the United States needs on Iraq is some fresh ideas from people able to speak out, and no one is more qualified to do that than Jim Baker,’ Mr. Wolf said.”

But national-security expert Michael Rubin has a different take on what he calls “The stacked Baker-Hamilton Commission.” In his Weekly Standard article Conclusion First, Debate Afterwards . . . Rubin writes - - -

“POLICYMAKERS ARE ABUZZ with the explosive recommendations for U.S. policy toward Iraq soon to be released by the Baker-Hamilton Commission: Abandon democracy, seek political compromise with the Sunni insurgents, and engage Tehran and Damascus as partners to secure stability in their neighbor.While former secretary of state James Baker and former representative Lee Hamilton said they would withhold their report until after the elections on November 7 to avoid its politicization, they have discussed their findings with the press. On October 8, for example, Baker appeared on ABC’s This Week, and the next day he discussed the group’s findings with Charlie Rose. On October 12, both Baker and Hamilton appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

Read the rest of this entry »

As I mentioned earlier I attended the debate among the candidates for the 10th Congressional District, sponsored by the League of Women Voters (of both Loudoun and Fairfax) on Tuesday, October 17th.

Usually, such debates are not particularly good for analyzing detailed policy positions. Candidates generally stick to talking points without specifics. However, such occasions are somewhat useful for evaluating how candidates look, sound and “feel” to audiences. Since Congressman Wolf is well-known to his constituents, the onus was on Judy Feder, the Democrat challenger, to make an impression.

First the incumbent: Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) is surely an experienced campaigner and speaker, but he struck me — visually — as seemingly defensive and somewhat stodgy. There was a palpable lack of energy on his part (with one exception — more on that below). He appeared to be almost irritated, perhaps even distressed to be at the debate.

In response to most questions, he rattled off what legislations and commissions he sponsored and how much money he brought to the district. These are surely noteworthy achievements, but I wish he had spoken more forcefully about his principles and political views and contrasted them sharply with Judy Feder, rather than sounding like a bureaucrat ticking off checklists of “have done’s.”

Read the rest of this entry »

I was at the debate among Congressman Wolf (R-VA), his Democrat challenger, Judy Feder, and two other less known candidates last night. I’ll write my impressions of the debate and of the contestants a little later. Please stay tuned.

There are too many reports of conservatives acquiescing in a 2006 Congressional defeat, perhaps escaping into their fantasy that Republicans will somehow be “punished” for straying from historic principles, and that a consequently “cleansed” party can return to power easily in 2008.

Theirs is a perilous path to follow. Jim Geraghty in National Review Online addressed this line of thought last May:

“Your effort to re-conservativize the Republican Party in Washington by staying home this year will have the effect of massacring the actual conservatives and empowering the moderates who you disdain. Perhaps we can call this counterproductive maneuver ‘RINO-plasty.’

But that’s okay, the staying-at-home-conservatives insist. The GOP will win back the House and Senate in 2008, establishing a true conservative majority.”

Geraghty explained:

“. . . [w]hat kind of lengths do you think the Democrats will go to in order to keep power once they’ve got it? Does the “Fairness Doctrine” ring a bell? You think Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t try that tactic to hinder conservative talk radio? How about McCain-Feingold 2.0, with a particular focus on controlling “unregulated speech” on the Internet and blogs?”

Read the rest of this entry »