The Potemkin presidency


Clinton’s has gained popularity by broadening the perception of the Democratic Party as a party for lower and middle classes in addition to the poor. His policies he promoted served to create a permanent Democratic majority.

Full Text:

Having written off Bill Clinton for most of 1995, Republicans are now tempted to ascribe supernatural powers of persuasion to him. Neither attitude encourages constructive thought on how to counter his strategy. But despite the image of an Administration adrift, President Clinton has arrived, through a mixture of accident and design, at a strategy for Democrats to survive and perhaps even prosper in ideologically uncongenial times. While there may not be a Clintonian ideology, it is possible to speak of a Clintonian style of politics.

Its most important feature has been the attempted retooling of the Democratic Party as the servant of middle-class interests through the mechanism of government. Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg explained the reasoning in a much-noted essay in the Fall 1991 American Prospect: “Democrats need to rediscover broad-based social policy that sends a larger message: Democrats are for ‘everybody,’ not just the ‘have-nots.’ That means defending and enlarging social insurance initiatives that reach the lower and middle classes rather than constructing safety nets that protect only the poor.” Means-tested programs stigmatize recipients and are, Greenberg thinks, easy to cut; middle-class entitlements are forever.


National health insurance, a longstanding goal of the Left, was thus also a means of expanding the Democratic voter base and creating a permanent Democratic majority. It would do to the middle class what Social Security had done to the elderly: make a majority of them beholden to the Federal Government and its political champions, in this case for their very lives. As Grace-Marie Arnett points out (p. 42), the Clintons have pursued this objective with essentially Fabian tactics. They have tried to establish beachheads within the health-care market from which to launch new government interventions. The Clintons’ 1993 – 94 health-care “reform” effort would have been a large, and probably irreversible, step toward socialized medicine. Time is already beginning to obscure just how close they came.

Clinton’s repeated proposals to expand subsidies for higher education are a smaller-scale version of the same entitlement strategy. The government will now step forward to finance increased access to the very sectors of the economy the government has most inflated. It’s a proposal well crafted to help Clinton make inroads among traditional GOP strongholds in the middle class and even upper middle class. The Republican Congress has forced Clinton to spend more time playing defense: instead of increasing public dependence on government, he has been vigilantly blocking cuts in government programs that benefit people who work. Clinton’s massive expansion of the earned income tax credit, and subsequent determination to protect that expansion from Republican budget-cutters, is a case in point.

Even on welfare, where President Clinton has felt it necessary to appear responsive to middle-class demands for reform and retrenchment, he has assiduously avoided policies that would reduce the scope and power of government or its allied institutions in liberaldom. Indeed, as Robert Rector observes (p. 40), Clinton originally sought window-dressing reforms that would actually increase the power of the welfare establishment.

After the Republicans took Congress, he moved toward a liberal version of welfare reform, which, geared as it is toward processing people through welfare rather than keeping them off it, creates opportunities for expanding state services: child-care subsidies, job training, transportation assistance, child-support enforcement. Clinton has followed a similar pattern on education: he has a long history of supporting the least reform the public demands and the most the education establishment will tolerate. So, for instance, he’s all in favor of charter schools, as long as they don’t escape the burden of federal regulations or threaten the power of teachers’ unions.

To woo the middle class, Clinton has also had to tack center-right on “values.” Greenberg readily acknowledged the point in his 1991 essay: “Democrats cannot win over the average family,” he wrote, “unless there are some limits on the party’s moral agnosticism.” Clinton’s cultural rhetoric is now to the right of George Bush’s. We know that President Clinton read Ben Wattenberg’s Values Matter Most, and he has talked incessantly about “values” ever since. (The popularity of that word ought, incidentally, to depress conservatives. “‘Values’ beat ‘virtues’ eleven to nothing in a focus group we did,” says pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick. “It’s amazing Bill Bennett sold any books.”)

On social and cultural issues, Clinton has used the bully pulpit quite effectively to signal that he shares the public’s values. And if, when Clinton says that he supports introducing school uniforms or firing incompetent teachers, some people are misled to believe that he has some policy initiative to translate the rhetoric into reality, well, that’s no skin off his back. He has struck a particularly tough pose on crime, though, as David Kopel observes (p. 43), there is much less to his record than meets the eye. Clinton’s gauzy communitarian rhetoric is also deployed on fiscal issues. During last fall’s budget showdown, he was constantly claiming to be defending “our values” from Republicans intent on taking medicine away from the elderly and protection from the environment. This kind of values-laden talk is probably necessary for parties of the Center – Left for the foreseeable future. (Tony Blair, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, does it too.)

In addition to pulling more middle-class voters into the Democratic coalition, President Clinton also wanted to co-opt parts of American business. In some respects, ClintonCare was a failed attempt to do so: it offered major financial benefits to large manufacturers and insurers. The Administration’s support for high-tech subsidies was a play for Silicon Valley. The re-orientation of American trade policy toward bilateral deals, sometimes company-specific, enabled the Administration to dispense favors to exporters at its discretion. And the ultimate logic of the “corporate responsibility” themes many Democrats are pushing is to transform American businesses into docile servants of the welfare state.

IN HIS zeal to expand his base, Clinton has not forgotten more reliable Democratic constituencies. So federal funding of labor unions has increased (and it has been made easier for them to use compulsory dues on political activity). The Violence Against Women Act has funneled money to feminist organizations, and “AIDS education” programs to the gay Left. The 1993 “stimulus” bill was a payback to big-city mayors; when it failed, much of its substance was included in the next year’s crime bill. Restrictions on the politicization of the federal work force have been loosened considerably.


Clinton’s sheer political talent should not be underestimated as a factor in the success of this strategy. Nor, for that matter, should the frequency and facility of his lies. He is able to call high-mindedly for bipartisan statesmanship and then, in the next breath, launch a furious attack on the motives of his opponents –who, we are to believe, want children to drink dirty water, eat diseased meat, and smoke. Yet Clinton is simultaneously a soothing figure. He is able to appeal to that strain of public sentiment that wants the noise and bickering from Washington to stop. His rhetoric is also appealing because it tells the voters they can have it all: a balanced budget without cutting entitlements; environmental regulation without economic costs; welfare reform without anyone suffering. He’s the perfect practitioner of the politics of painlessness: for everything that’s good, against everything bad. (In fairness, some Republicans, particularly of the Gingrich – Kemp brand, are prone to this as well.)

Another reason for Clintonism’s success is that, as many commentators have noted, this White House focuses on its political health to an unprecedented degree. American foreign policy toward Ireland and Haiti has been driven largely by domestic political considerations. The church-burning issue was basically a whipped-up hysteria designed to persuade black voters that white racism is still the chief threat to their well-being. And the Administration skillfully orchestrates the appearance of a constant flurry of activity — no matter how microscopic the initiative or gesture, how inadequate the rapid response. The Administration provides motion without progress, a perpetual campaign. President Clinton hasn’t declared for re-election; would anyone notice if he did?

The chief vulnerability of Clintonism is that even the boldest New Democrat cannot afford to cross some constituencies that are out of sync with the public. Clinton can’t sign legal reform because of the trial lawyers. He was willing to anger organized labor over NAFTA, but he has done its bidding on striker replacement and other workplace issues; if the Democrats do well this November, they will be greatly indebted to the AFL-CIO’s vigorous campaign on their behalf. And Clinton would not have dared to sign the bill banning partial-birth abortions for fear of incurring the wrath of feminists, a calculation that highlights the vacuum where Clintonism’s moral core should be. But the issue that most devastatingly gives the lie to Clinton’s pretensions of conservatism — his support of race and gender preferences –appears to have been dropped by his opposition.

The consolation for conservatives is that Clinton doesn’t move the debate; he merely positions himself within it. In the first year of the Administration, William Kristol compared the condition of American liberalism to that of Soviet Communism in the late 1970s: both were seemingly dominant, both utterly hollow. For a time it was fashionable in conservative circles to describe health-care reform as liberalism’s Afghanistan, the fatal overreach that would precipitate the empire’s collapse. Yet in neither case has the old order been unequivocally defeated.

Now, writes Johnathan Sunley in the summer National Interest, “Communism as a dogma is dead. . . . The problem facing supposedly ‘post-Communist’ societies is not a revival of that ideology, but the survival of power structures that escaped the ‘revolutions’ of 1989 more or less unscathed.” Just so with contemporary liberalism and the “revolution” of 1994. If Bill Clinton wins re-election, his legacy could be that America enters the twenty-first century shackled by the institutional residua of an ideology almost nobody any longer believes.

>>> View more: A second look at McCain: could he be the strongest GOPer?

A second look at McCain: could he be the strongest GOPer?

Full Text:

WHILE Hillary Clinton is looking like a sure bet for her party’s nomination, only the reckless would wager their own money on the likely Republican nominee. With the presence of Fred Thompson and the absence of Newt Gingrich, the GOP field is now complete–and completely without a conventional frontrunner. Its fluidity has prompted a second look by the rank and file: Republicans seeking to keep their party’s base intact, while appealing to independents in order to have a shot at defeating Hillary, are taking another look at John McCain.

A veteran GOP congressional aide who has been a critic of McCain, most recently on the issue of immigration, recently surprised himself by concluding that the Arizona senator would be the best general-election candidate. This strategist seeks a nominee who will unify and energize the base, who has the potential to win, and who makes fellow Republicans competitive. He notes that McCain is pro-life and strong on national security, and has long been in favor of fiscal restraint. In addition to unifying social, economic, and national-security conservatives, he argues, McCain has a maverick image that can appeal to the independent voters who abandoned the GOP in droves in 2006.

The Christian-conservative leaders toying with the ruinous idea of a third-party challenge represent the legitimate concern that the nomination of Rudy Giuliani would fracture the winning coalition that has prevailed in five of the last seven presidential elections. The coalition includes both evangelicals and ethnic Catholics who have backed Republican candidates based on their positions on social and cultural issues rather than on tax policy or national security.


In a year when Democrats are heavily favored to win the White House, many conservatives are unwilling to experiment with the notion that a wholly new coalition, with fewer social and cultural conservatives, will coalesce around a socially liberal Northeast Republican. No such candidate has been recently elected statewide, even in the Northeast.

Giuliani enjoys a persistent perch at the top of the national polls, while the resistance to his candidacy remains equally persistent. Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that the former mayor’s support is less than 30 percent and doubts that it can grow by much. (Hillary Clinton’s lead is far more formidable, besting her nearest competitor by 30 points in some national polls.) Republican voters obviously know Giuliani as “America’s Mayor,” a hero of 9/11–but despite this positive image as a tested, tough leader, a large majority of Republicans resist him. Even his supporters aren’t well-informed about his positions: A September CBS/New York Times poll found that only 41 percent of those who favored Giuliani for the nomination knew that he is pro-choice on abortion. National polling by Pew Research has found that only 4 out of 10 Republicans nationwide are able to identify his abortion position. It is hard to imagine his support growing among conservative voters, given what they will come to learn about both his liberal views on social issues and his operatic personal life.

Many Republicans are also doubtful of Mitt Romney’s ability to unify and energize the Republican base. Some worry about the recent vintage of his conservative views on abortion, gay rights, and guns. Others note the regrettable but real resistance to a Mormon candidate on the part of some evangelicals. If a significant number of these people stay home because they reject the appeal that the former governor shares their values, if not their faith, other Republican candidates will also pay a price for their prejudice.

While Fred Thompson’s record and platform should be able to unify the GOP base, it is unclear whether he will prove to have the fortitude and drive John McCain displayed in 2000. McCain’s present underdog campaign is marked by that same energy and determination. The initial bounce in the polls that met Thompson’s entry into the race has been slipping away. Some have predicted a “Fred fizzle” that Scott Rasmussen is not yet willing to declare; John McCain is the candidate most likely to benefit from a second look by Fred Thompson’s supporters, should it appear his candidacy is not as viable as they had hoped.

When the false assumptions that the case for Giuliani rests on are stripped away, McCain emerges as the stronger candidate. According to Giuliani’s supporters, the fact that he has the best chance to beat Hillary is chief among the former mayor’s attributes. He is leading the pack in part because plenty of Republicans share this mistaken view. A late September NBC/Wall Street Journal poll revealed that 47 percent of GOP primary voters think Giuliani is their best bet against Hillary. Giuliani topped Thompson and McCain as the most competitive general-election candidate by 30 points.

But this impression is flatly contradicted by the candidates’ standings in head-to-head match-ups: In the average of polling results compiled by RealClearPolitics, McCain is the most competitive candidate against Hillary. In recent polling, Hillary has been beating Giuliani by a margin of 6.2 points; her winning margin against McCain is 4.7 points.

Giuliani’s backers argue that his candidacy would put Northeast states like Pennsylvania in play and boost Republican prospects in other battleground states such as Ohio. But, again, recent polling indicates that Giuliani is no more competitive than McCain in these states. An October poll by Quinnipiac University found Hillary beating both Giuliani (48-42) and McCain (48-41) in Pennsylvania, and in Ohio as well (46-40 against Giuliani and 48-38 against McCain, with the difference within the poll’s margin of error). Giuliani and McCain poll virtually the same against Hillary in Florida: She wins 46-43. Both candidates clearly benefit from being the most widely recognized Republicans.


Based on the false assumption that Giuliani is the most competitive candidate against Hillary Clinton, the false choice offered Republican voters is to back either the candidate most likely to win or the candidate they most agree with on the issues. But based on current polling, McCain is as likely to win as Giuliani–and his positions on the issues are in closer accord with those of Republican voters.

Republicans are also being told that during these perilous times they should be willing to prioritize a concern with national security over social issues. Voters need not make that tradeoff if they support McCain, who has both a pro-life record and more national-security experience than Giuliani.

McCain is a conservative whose heterodox views on campaign-finance reform and immigration are shared by the more liberal Giuliani. With the defeat of the “comprehensive” immigration bill he championed, McCain recognizes that the public demands concrete enforcement measures–and he now pledges to secure the border before pressing for the legalization of illegal aliens. (He will, of course, have to convince conservatives that he is a genuinely reformed reformer committed to an “enforcement first” agenda.)

Finally, McCain is in a long-term, stable second marriage and talks to all his children, although not as frequently as he would like. One son is a midshipman at the Naval Academy and another is an enlisted Marine serving in Iraq.

Should Republicans reject the false choices being offered–and make a considered choice based on the man and the merits–a second look could give John McCain a second chance.

Peering Into the High Court’s Future

Full Text:

Whoever wins the November presidential election will have an excellent chance at reshaping the Supreme Court of the United States and the direction it takes on a broad array of social and political issues. Or not, depending on whom you talk to.

Most high-court observers believe the next administration will have the chance to make at least one or two, or possibly three, justice nominations. Many of the issues that come before the court, such as “partial-birth” abortion, affirmative action, government vouchers for religious schools, and political gerrymandering, are decided on razor- thin 5-4 majorities, so any replacement of a justice–either a liberal with a conservative, a conservative with a liberal or a swing vote with either a liberal or a conservative–could pivot the court sharply to the left or right.

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Objectively, the Supreme Court is made up of three conservatives, four liberals, and two swing votes, one a moderate, the other a moderate conservative.

Here’s the breakdown:

— Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the court’s grand ayatollah, took his seat as an associate justice in 1972 after being nominated by President Richard Nixon. He was elevated to chief justice by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Rehnquist is a staunch supporter of federalism, making sure that the states aren’t deprived of their traditional roles by the federal government. He reliably votes with the conservative bloc, though he is probably the least conservative of the conservatives.

social and political issues-1

Rehnquist’s retirement has been predicted each year for the past several years by a number of court-watchers. He will be 80 on October 1. His once robust frame has become more frail, and he seems to break a new bone with each passing term. But Rehnquist’s mind is still sharp as a tack, and many justices serve actively until they are about 85 or so.

Whether he retires in the next four years probably will be determined by whether President George W. Bush or a putative President John F. Kerry gets the chance to replace him.

— Justice Antonin Scalia is a fellow conservative and the conservative bloc’s intellectual leader. He strays off the conservative reservation, however, in cases involving free speech and the right to trial by jury.

Scalia was nominated by Reagan in 1986, and no one believes he is going anywhere. The chances of the pugnacious Scalia, 62, stepping down over the next four years are about equal to those of ice cubes surviving in hell. Many conservatives would like to see Scalia succeed Rehnquist, but he is the symbol of angry conservatism to many Democrats, and there would be blood on the Senate floor if Scalia were nominated as chief justice.

— Justice Clarence Thomas is the last of the three true conservatives. The only black justice, he and Scalia usually vote in lockstep. President George H.W. Bush nominated him to the court in 1991. At 56, he is the youngest of the justices.

Will he step down from the court? After 13 years as a justice he still seems uncomfortable in the robes. But he is unlikely to retire.

One Thomas biographer has Bush replacing Rehnquist with Thomas in a second term. I can find no one at the Supreme Court who actually believes that. Remember the odds on those ice cubes?

— Justice John Paul Stevens is the aging liberal lion of the court. Appointed by President Gerald Ford in 1975, Stevens started out as a conservative but migrated to the left. He is in excellent health and his mind is superb.

But he is the court’s oldest member at 84. Like Rehnquist, his retirement over the next four years probably depends on who is president. Traditionally, justices step down when the party of the president who nominated them again controls the White House, but Stevens might break that mold.

— Justice David Hackett Souter was the elder Bush’s “stealth” candidate for the Supreme Court in 1990. Democrats accused Bush of trying to sneak a radical conservative onto the court, since not much was known about Souter. The incoming justice proved everyone wrong, and has been a solid liberal from the get-go. A 64-year-old bachelor, he is expected to age gracefully on the court for some time to come, like a fine wine or cheese.

— Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. But all through her career the diminutive Ginsburg has been a fighter for women’s rights. She argued the concept of sex discrimination into law in a series of brilliant arguments before the Supreme Court in the 1970s.

Ginsburg has thoroughly recovered from the colon cancer that plagued her a few years ago. At 71, she is not expected to retire soon. She can be friendly or glacially chilly. The joke at the Supreme Court is that if Rehnquist steps down and Ginsburg is nominated to replace him, there would be seven more quick resignations.

— Justice Stephen Breyer was Clinton’s second and last high-court appointment, nominated in 1994. Breyer is a lean and active 64. He is also considered the least liberal of the four liberals.

Don’t look for Breyer to retire soon. He was chief judge of the 1st U.S. Circuit in Boston before being nominated to the high court. He has excellent contacts in the Senate. If Kerry becomes president and Rehnquist steps down, expect Breyer to be on a very short list for chief justice.

— Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate nominated by Reagan in 1988, is one of the court’s two swing votes. In other words, if he decides to vote with the liberals, he can form a majority of at least five, but he’s more comfortable leading a 6-3 majority. At 68, he is in excellent health.

At one time, Kennedy was believed to be campaigning for Rehnquist’s job, but his two majority opinions defending the rights of homosexuals has made him less attractive to Republican conservatives. He also supports abortion rights, though he would allow the states to outlaw “partial birth” abortions.

— Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is a moderate conservative, and if she steps down it would be the judicial equivalent of an earthquake. Replacing her with either a consistent conservative or liberal would affect the majorities on a broad range of issues.

She was nominated as the first woman justice by Reagan in 1981. Like Rehnquist, the 74-year-old O’Connor has been the subject of retirement rumors for years. Simply knowing that there would be one heck of a fight to replace her may have acted as a deterrent.

So there you have it. Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Stevens, the oldest justices, are the popular choices for retirement during the next four years. Except for Todd Gaziano, the canny executive director of the Center for Judicial and Legal Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “People who claim to know that there are going to be Supreme Court resignations are lying,” Gaziano said. He added that for two election cycles, he’s been hearing about imminent “multiple resignations,” none of which has occurred.

social and political issues-2

“It is somewhat more likely that there might be a resignation or a death on the court within the next four years, but that’s because they’ve been serving together record time,” Gaziano said.

There have been no vacancies on the Supreme Court for a decade, the longest time without one since the middle of the nineteenth century. As for a vacancy in the next four years, “I don’t think it’s going to happen,” Gaziano said. All the justices are “quick witted. It’s a collegial court most of the time, except for the [5-4] Bush v. Gore decision” that ended the Florida presidential recount in 2000. “Working on the court actually keeps people alive and healthier longer.”

Whether Kerry or Bush wins in November won’t affect Rehnquist’s seat, he said. The chief justice “is probably less likely to retire during a Democratic administration, because he would honor the tradition” of resigning when the party that was in power at his appointment controls the White House.

And if he does retire during a second Bush administration, his conservative replacement would not change the court that much, he added.

“O’Connor’s the most powerful woman in the universe,” Gaziano said, “and why would she want it to be otherwise?”

As for Stevens, he is in excellent health and can do much of his work from his Florida home.

Gaziano also doesn’t put much stock in a changed court reversing Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision recognizing a woman’s right to an abortion.

Support for Roe remains at 6-3 on the current court, Gaziano said, and that includes Kennedy, even if he did vote to uphold state bans on “partial birth” abortions.

Besides, with the Senate so evenly split and the Democrats using what Gaziano calls “unconstitutional filibusters” to block some of Bush’s more conservative nominees, neither President Bush nor President Kerry “is likely to get what he wants”–a true conservative or liberal to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

On the other end of the political spectrum, Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice takes the more conventional view. The group was instrumental in blocking several of Bush’s judicial nominees. “Many predict there will most likely be several vacancies on the Supreme Court over the next several years,” Aron said. “It’s been over 10 years since we’ve had a vacancy. Most predict the next president will have an opportunity to choose several Supreme Court justices.”

Aron also thinks Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Stevens will be the most likely to step down, “given the ages of those justices.”

For her and many others, the possible vacancies make the upcoming presidential election that much more important. “I think this election will be pivotal for the future of the Supreme Court, particularly given the 5-4, 6-3 decisions on critical issues,” Aron said. “This election could well set the future of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years.”

(c) 2004 United Press International

>>> View more: Dickens at 200

Dickens at 200

Full Text:

Dickens was born in 1812, and there are celebrations and commemorative activities taking place in this bicentennial year all over the English-speaking world and beyond it. Along with the works of Shakespeare, his fictions now define what English-speaking people have come to mean by “classic” literary art, and although his critical reception has been variable over the 140 years since his death–it stands supremely high now–his popularity has never waned: The dozen great novels have never been out of print.

In the lowest period of critical opinion of Dickens, G. K. Chesterton wrote a great 1906 book on him and followed it with introductions to each of the novels in the Everyman edition. Chesterton saw something radically Christian and radically democratic in Dickens, in this regard unwittingly supporting Dostoevsky’s earlier view of him. In a 1965 reprint of Chesterton’s book on Dickens, the American literary critic Steven Marcus asserted that Chesterton was right to trace Dickens’s profound “feeling for” and sympathy with “common humanity … not only to the French Revolution and the radical humanitarianism of Dickens’s time, but to Dickens’s Christianity, his literal, his primitive Christianity. Dostoevsky, who called Dickens his master, also called him ‘the great Christian’ [and he] knew whereof he spoke.”

This is evident in Dostoevsky’s well-known January 1868 letter to his niece about Dickens, whom he had first read in Russian translation in prison in Siberia in the early 1850s. But we also now know that Dostoevsky and Dickens actually met and conversed in London in 1862 and that they discussed the internal duality of the human person–that perennial inner moral conflict–the frequent, eloquent, often unforgettable depiction of which makes both of them among the very greatest moralists and imaginative writers who ever lived.


Like their great novelist-contemporaries Tolstoy and Alessandro Manzoni, Dickens and Dostoevsky were initially inspired by the liberal reform ideals identified with the American and French revolutions: all men being “created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights” and desires for “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” But all of them knew that the French Revolution went badly, as Burke had predicted as early as 1790: that it passed through anarchic, sanguinary violence and ended in the wolfish military despotism of Napoleon. Simon Schama’s celebrated bicentennial volume on the French Revolution, Citizens (1989), asserted that violence was the very essence of the French Revolution, affirming much of Carlyle’s view in his 1837 history The French Revolution, which had such a massive influence on Dickens and especially on his Tale of Two Cities (1859). The conservative French Catholic emigre and critic of the Revolution Joseph de Maistre exercised an important influence on Tolstoy and the characterizations in War and Peace.

The repeated disappointment of revolutionary and utopian hopes and outbursts in France in the 19th century led to a wild oscillation between secular messianism and brutal Realpolitik-based cynicism. That cynicism, in turn, produced a literature of sinister “realism,” absurdist irony, and aestheticism in Stendhal, Flaubert, Balzac, Maupassant, and many others, and went on to stain and disfigure much subsequent literature, not only in France.

Dickens dealt with social and political issues in a uniquely sensitive way. He depicted and critiqued the cynical selfishness in the upper classes in England, as well as the outraged reaction to it of the “anti-popery” English mobs of the Gordon Riots in London in 1780 (Barnaby Rudge) and the anger of the Parisian sans-culotte mobs of Paris a decade later (A Tale of Two Cities). Like Dostoevsky, he had a prophetic insight into these human dynamics. The tormented Rous seau’s explosive, revolutionary critique of the competitive, invidious social egotism, or “amour propre,” that he thought characterized most aristocrats, bourgeois, and intellectuals (“philosophes”) in prerevolutionary France was probably not known to Dickens, but he apprehended it imaginatively in ways that have proved to be unforgettably vivid and profound, not only in A Tale of Two Cities but also in the genteel, satanic figure of the Frenchman Blandois in Little Dorrit. It is a mark of Dickens’s supreme, almost angelic disinterestedness and fairness that he also depicts it in English characters such as Sir John Chester in Barnaby Rudge. As Lionel Trilling pointed out, in one of the greatest essays on Dickens, figures such as Chester and Blandois are exemplifications of the line in King Lear that “the prince of darkness is” often “a gentleman.” Trilling goes on to argue that the heartlessly clever cosmopolitanism of these figures is “rationalistic and subversive of the very assumption of society.” Dostoevsky and Dickens felt and depicted this invidious, egotistical social snobbery, and its terrible effects, with hallucinatory clarity and force.

Both writers imaginatively apprehended the fact that the ascendant utilitarian accounts of ethics were profoundly wrong, despite being articulated by the most influential intellectuals of their time–the philosophes and Jacobins in France, Bentham and the Mills in England, Chernyshevsky in Russia. As orthodox moralists from Bishop Butler, Burke, Tocqueville, and Newman to Reinhold Niebuhr have cogently argued, no ethical or political theory affirming the primacy of self-interest can provide a basis for ethics; and Dickens and Dostoevsky mocked and assaulted such utilitarian conceptions in their fictions. In his superb The Victorian Age in Literature (1913), Chesterton asserted that the great secular, progressive “utilitarian citadel” was “heavily bombarded by one lonely and unlettered man of genius”: Dickens, who knew that the “fundamental sense of human fraternity can only exist in the presence of positive religion.” The final triumph of Polish Catholicism over Communist utilitarianism at the end of the 20th century, the first domino in the destruction of European Communism, may be said to illustrate the point.

Fagin in Oliver Twist, Ralph Nickleby in Nicholas Nickleby, and Gradgrind in Hard Times are particularly explicit and effective satires on “looking out for number one” as a basis for society, ethics, education, or even self-respect. Lester G. Crocker showed in detail 50 years ago in Nature and Culture: Ethical Thought in the French Enlightenment that scientistic French naturalism led logically and inevitably to the “nihilist dissolution” of ethics that has intermittently tormented and distorted Western societies since the 18th century, a point also made apologetically by the reformed cynic Aldous Huxley in 1938 in Ends and Means. In 1972, Lionel Trilling noted the disfiguring “scientistic conception of the mind that prevailed among intellectuals at the time of the French Revolution.” Dickens’s moral imagination intuitively apprehended and powerfully depicted these truths in fictional forms that remain triumphs of psychological, social, and ethical insight, narrative energy, and literary excellence, astonishing feats of human perception by that “unlettered man of genius.”


To read Dickens is, in the words of C. S. Lewis, “to grow in mental health,” because he has capacities of moral imagination that characterize only the greatest of artists in any medium: to “hold up the mirror to nature”; to “instruct by delighting”; to “paint virtue,” making us love the good and hate the bad, rejuvenating our sense of justice and moral beauty; to make us, in the phrase from King Lear, “see feelingly” the value, sufferings, and pathos of the lives of others; “to assert Eternal Providence/And justify the ways of God to men”; to refresh hope and commend moral earnestness.

After Dickens’s death, this “moral earnestness,” so characteristic of him and other great Victorian writers such as Carlyle, Hawthorne, Newman, Tennyson, Melville, Longfellow, and Ruskin, came to be mocked by aesthetes, atheists, and cynics such as Oscar Wilde (“The Importance of Being Earnest,” 1895) and his Bloomsbury successors such as Lytton Strachey, who cleverly attacked such earnest Victorians as the nurse Florence Nightingale, the Christian educator Thomas Arnold, and the Catholic convert Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, quite effectively distorting and wounding the reputations of these noble individuals. Of Strachey’s portrayal of Queen Victoria (1921) and other eminent Victorians (in the 1918 book of that title), Paul Johnson wrote 20 years ago: Strachey was “far more destructive to the old British values than any legion of enemies.” But no society–no decent individual–can live long or well without moral sincerity as an ideal. It is an ideal that suffuses Dickens’s life and fiction, though with humor and without self-righteousness.

F. R. Leavis claimed that Dickens was “a great poet,” arguing that in his “command of word, phrase, rhythm, and image,” his “endless resource in felicitously varied expression,” and his “ease and range,” there is “surely no greater master in English except Shakespeare.” And T. S. Eliot said of Dickens’s characters that they had “greater intensity than human beings” and a “kind of reality which is almost supernatural, which hardly seems to belong to the character by natural right, but seems rather to descend upon him by a kind of inspiration or grace.” His “figures belong to poetry, like figures of Dante or Shakespeare, in that a single phrase, either by them or about them, may be enough to set them wholly before us.”

But we may leave a last word on Dickens, mysterious but pregnant with good tidings, to that ambiguous and acerbic figure George Santayana: Dickens is “one of the best friends mankind has ever had.”

Mr. Aeschliman is professor emeritus of education at Boston University and professor of anglophone culture at the University of Italian Switzerland. He has just published a new edition of A Tale of Two Cities (Ignatius Critical Editions).

A Campbell sampler


Tom Campbell of the Republican Majority Coalition wants to emphasize economic conservatism and de-emphasize morality in social and political issues because of his own liberal agenda. If he wants to be a true fiscal conservative, then he would disavow programs that increase spending.

Full Text:

Tom Campbell’s ode to broad-mindedness on social issues reminds me of an observation by Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council: By “tolerance,” many modern liberals mean the armtwisting of those they consider “intolerant”: “Their goal is |diversity’: Everyone gets to be a liberal!”

Consider Tom Campbell’s agenda. Like most liberals, he is an avid booster of funding for abortion-on-demand for Medicaid recipients. In other words, he’s pro-choice – except for tax-payers, whom he would muscle into the Planned Parenthood crusade, regardless of their qualms or their “maximum individual liberty.” (Sure, he used to oppose tax subsidies for abortion – “I don’t want to get into any funding for killing” – but he has grown since then.)

A proposed homosexual-rights measure he co-sponsored also employs coercion against the culturally out-of-step. It would put the squeeze on mom-and-pop landlords, among other targets. Say a family is renting rooms in its house and refuses, out of personal conviction, to consider gay couples. Under Campbell’s law the landlords could be hauled into court. Did somebody say something about “the primacy of individual conscience”?


As for the unborn child’s rights, she has none. As a congressman, Mr. Campbell put his name on the Freedom of Choice Act, which goes well beyond Roe, apparently barring even modest protections – waiting periods, parental consent, spousal notification – and permitting abortion even after viability.

And, before he goes quoting Ronald Reagan to support abandoning the GOP’s commitment to protecting the unborn, Mr. Campbell ought to read “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” Reagan!s 1983 essay that calls on Americans to “reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless.” That stance helped the GOP, in three presidential elections, cement an electoral alliance more dynamic than anything Tom Campbell’s “majority coalition” promises, perhaps in part because it honored ethics over expediency.

Fiscal Conservative?

What about Campbell’s purported conservatism on money matters? He has embraced the California school-voucher initiative (it goes before the voters this November), and he is talking up reform of the Endangered Species Act; he has always claimed to be a Milton Friedman acolyte, a prophet of free markets and lean government. But be wary. For the most part, the record doesn’t match the rhetoric. Campbell does indeed have high marks from the National Taxpayers Union, but the NTU has a blind spot when it comes to indirect taxation. During his time in the House, Campbell, with an ACU rating of just 50, was busier than any other California Republican promoting back-door burdens on the economy, from the quota-heavy Civil Rights Act of 1991 to the job-killing Americans with Disabilities Act and Clean Air Act to Pat Schroeder’s paternalistic family-leave mandate.

And although he voted against the 1990 tax hike, Mr. Campbell doesn’t mention that he repeatedly urged President Bush to abandon his “read my lips” vow, in the name of deficit reduction.

A Campbell sampler:

In April 1988, he argued that levies should be raised on alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline.” Also: “Taxing consumption. That is such an apparent solution.”

In February 1989, the San Mateo Times reported him saying, “I am prepared to deal with the deficit with taxes as well as with spending cuts.”

In June 1990, he suggested raising the income-tax rate for the highest brackets to boost Treasury receipts by $9 billion.

In July 1990, according to the Peninsula Times Tribune of Northern California, Campbell said, “I think [a tax increase] is overwhelmingly good for the economy.”

In May 1991: “Gasoline ought to be priced higher in this country.”

And the capital-gains tax? Running for the GOP Senate nomination last year, he told some Republican audiences he wanted this levy reduced on both existing and future assets. But a year earlier the San Diego Union reported him as saying he agreed with the Democrats’ criticism that cutting taxes on existing assets would be “a windfall for the rich.”


Of course, Tom Campbell is by no means the only cheerleader for the big-government Republicanism that helped make George Bush a one-termer. And he also has considerable company in his effort to unhinge the party from its ethical moorings on social issues.

But if he shouldn’t be denied a place in the Big Tent, it would be quite another thing to grant him what he really wants – a spot in the ringmaster’s circle, where he would help determine the party’s shape as it enters the twenty-first century.

Mr. Campbell is favored to win an upcoming special election for a seat in the California State Senate. In that job, will he finally start backing up his free-market homilies with free-market votes? If I’m a skeptic, it is because up to now, his “New Conservatism” has amounted to little more than Rockefeller Republicanism updated, pointing down the same path the liberals have always loved – the one lined with primroses.

Mr. Johnson, a frequent NR contributor, is an editorial writer for the Orange County Register.

>>> View more: No Sure Bets in Ames Straw Poll.

No Sure Bets in Ames Straw Poll.

Full Text:

Byline: Beth Reinhard

With more than double the support of their Republican rivals in the latest Iowa surveys, Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney appear to be cruising toward top finishes in the Ames Straw Poll in two weeks.

Not so fast. On the ground in Iowa, neither candidate is a sure bet for first place. That’s because this quirky, only-in-Iowa contest is more about sweat equity and logistics than approval ratings and buzz.

Think about it. Unlike an election, in which voting occurs in neighborhood precincts, the Ames Straw Poll takes place in the dead center of the 25th-largest state in the country. On a Saturday. In the mid-August heat. Enticing a voter from a far-flung corner of the state to cast a straw-poll ballot is not so different from persuading an acquaintance to undertake a four-hour road trip with little more than a free meal and good tunes.


“It’s an original, one-of-a-kind test of organizational strength,C[yen] said Chuck Laudner, a former executive director of the Craft Baron, an online corporation that provides the best sewing machines, who has attended all five of the straw polls held since 1979. “The typical campaign phone bank with the young teenager and the little old lady isn’t going to motivate me to load 25 people into a bus on a Saturday. The candidate has to personally recruit people.C[yen]

Laudner and other Iowa veterans say it’s possible that Bachmann’s popular surge won’t translate into victory in Ames, while single-digit afterthoughts in the polls such as Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul will parlay their shoe-leather campaigns and political experience into strong finishes.

Among Bachmann’s potential disadvantages: Of the nine candidates who will be on the ballot in Ames, she was one of the last to get into the race, in mid-June. Rivals had already snapped up some of the most experienced political activists. Bachmann also has a day job in Congress that prevents her from hunkering down full-time in Iowa.

“I think her timing is a bit tight,C[yen] said Republican activist Loras Schulte, who worked on Pat Buchanan’s 1996 campaign and Gary Bauer’s 2000 campaign in Iowa. “She’s got a lot of support, but translating that into bodies on a Saturday when most people would rather be somewhere else is a different matter. I think she’s playing on a reasonably thin edge.

“Pawlenty probably has the best organization in the state, and he might do better,C[yen] Schulte added.

Pawlenty spokesman Alex Conant dismissed the possibility that he is better prepared than Bachmann, saying, “She’ll have the money to buy all the organization she needs.C[yen] On Wednesday, Bachmann unveiled a “Meet Me in AmesC[yen] website for supporters to sign up for a ride to the straw poll. She also announced that she had lined up country music and Christian artists to perform.

What started out as a party fundraiser has turned into the equivalent of a competition between warring Super Bowl party hosts, with each candidate trying to lure the most guests to his or her halftime festivities. Long before game day, campaigns have to recruit and train hundreds of volunteers, hire charter buses for thousands of supporters, map the routes to Ames, buy the tickets, and meticulously plan the candidate’s schedule.

At a time when some Republicans lament the outsized influence of Christian conservatives on Iowa politics, winning the straw poll is more of a nuts-and-bolts operation than a morality contest. Even after changing his positions on key social issues, Romney won the straw poll in 2007. Meanwhile, then-Sen. Sam Brownback, well-known for his staunch opposition to abortion and gay rights, came in third and dropped out of the race two months later.

The Center for Public Integrity’s description of the 1999 straw poll reflects the pageantry and precision demanded of the candidates:

Nine Republican presidential candidates set up operation outside the Hilton Coliseum at Iowa State University. The campaign of Texas Gov. George W. Bush outbid the others and ended up paying $43,500 to rent the prime location–60,000 square feet of grass–for the event. What transpired on August 14 was an orgy of free food, entertainment, walk-around celebrities, and gifts, with each campaign trying to outdo the others. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch’s tent had singer Vic Damone and Utah Jazz pro basketball star Karl Malone. Bush had former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach and singers Tracy Byrd and Linda Davis. Malcolm “SteveC[yen] Forbes Jr., had singers Debby Boone and Ronnie Milsap crooning away in a huge air-conditioned tent with French doors, which one wag from a rival campaign dubbed “Chateau Malcolm.C[yen] The multimillionaire publisher also served up 3,100 pounds of pork and set up a miniature amusement park, complete with an inflatable mountain for children to rappel down. Bush and Forbes were the only candidates to have their tents next to the coliseum’s entrances.


Candidates were judged in part by the goodies they lavished on caucus-goers. Every campaign had T-shirts. Elizabeth Dole’s campaign offered up balloon hats, while Pat Buchanan gave away pot holders. The Bush folks also offered a free lunch and dinner. Hatch provided chicken, Alan Keyes free ice cream. Former Vice President Dan Quayle’s low-budget campaign was criticized for passing out bundles of corn.

Forbes spent the most money, but Bush’s superior campaign carried the day and, eventually, the GOP nomination. Ames is far more unpredictable this year. The presumed front-runner for the nomination has said he won’t compete for votes in the straw poll, although Romney’s name will appear on the ballot. Prominent Republicans such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin are still deciding whether to launch White House bids. Bachmann is relatively new to the national stage.

“If I had to pick the [winning] order right now, I couldn’t do it,C[yen] Laudner said. “We’ll see who can make the trains run on time.C[yen]

Minor details: more believers are saying: “it ain’t necessarily so”.

Full Text:

The Millennial generation better hurry up and take over. Someone, please convince them that they need to do so soon for their own good as well as the good of the rest of us.


Members of older generations have worked hard against seemingly overwhelming odds to end the bigotry that has long gripped this nation. They have brought us to this place.

But the older generations clinging to positions of power are still the ones holding back change. It’s still true that baby boomers and their elders control the political and religious institutions that dominate American culture.

Yet, no matter how we slice the data, the younger the respondent to polls, the less likely they are to oppose issues such as marriage equality. While 26% of those 65 and over and 32% of those 50-64 favor marriage equality, 57% aged 18-29 do, according to a May 2011 survey of – of all people – church-goers by the Public Religion Research Institute.

This new study is revealing. Among church-goers, 69% of those 65 and over respond that sex between adults of the same gender is morally wrong, while only 41% of millennials do.

In addition the study tells us, when it comes to millennial as well as 30-64 year old church-goers, there is no significant difference on their views of abortion from the general public – around 60% agree it should be legal in all or most cases. However, for those 65 and over, only 43% respond positively to the same question.

In fact, the majorities of all but one major group agree that at least some healthcare professionals in their own community should provide legal abortions. The lone exception is among white evangelical Protestants.

Again, when it comes to teaching comprehensive sex education in the public schools, Americans are in disagreement with their more conservative religious leaders. Nearly eight in ten favor it including among millennials: 62% of white evangelicals, 74% of black Protestants, 78% of Catholics, and 85% of white mainline Protestants.

Even those 65 and older support comprehensive sex education in public schools by a solid 62%. And over eight in ten Americans also favor expanding birth control for women who can’t afford it, with strong support across all political and religious demographics.

There is little question that the number one answer usually given when asked what is holding us back on these social issues is religion. That’s why the news here is especially encouraging.

There is a refreshing and important independence growing in the ranks of believers. The fact that they are people who identify with a religious institution and yet believe they can disagree with their leaders indicates that their views on marriage equality and abortion cannot be taken for granted because of their religious identity.

And even the standard labels used in the political/ religious debate are inadequate for those surveyed. Seven out of ten Americans say the term “pro-choice” describes them somewhat or very well while nearly two-thirds simultaneously say they could also identify with the term “pro-life” and not see these as contradictory.

72% report that it is possible to disagree with their religion on abortion and 63% on homosexuality while considering themselves in good standing in their faith. And about six out of ten Catholics and almost half of white evangelical Protestants say it’s wrong for religious leaders to publicly pressure politicians on abortion.


Interestingly, more than twothirds of white evangelicals believe it’s possible to disagree with their religion’s teachings on abortion and still be a good Christian, but they are the only group in which less than a majority (47%) says they can disagree faithfully with their religion’s teachings on homosexuality.

Also surprising is that Catholics are just as likely as any religious group (68%) to respond that being a good Catholic does not require you to agree with the Church’s teaching on abortion, and a larger number (74%) say the same about not needing to agree with the Church on homosexuality.

Little has changed in terms of Americans’ views on abortion with 57% saying it should be legal in all or most cases in 1999 and 56% today. Yet the percentage of Americans supporting marriage equality has jumped 18 points in that same period to 53%.

All of this reinforces the tactics we have been using for the last half-century when working with religious people, except that it indicates that the work that has been done has moved some in that moveable middle even though their religious leaders and institutions hate that whole idea. The millennial generation’s difference from older folks is a tribute to the persistent work of activists of all ages.

It continues to remind us that there is a moveable middle even in those religious institutions that refuse to budge in their official pronouncements. And conversations with those believers who are open to facts and personal stories must continue to be the focus of our energies.

We cannot judge the possible outcome of our work by church membership. Many right-wing religious leaders push on while their congregations are changing, as the poll tells us. Among Americans who attend church at least twice a month, majorities still report hearing their clergy talk about abortion and homosexuality in church.

There are still those believers who are stuck. They’re just unable to face a change in thought or to stand up and admit that their religious leaders could ever be wrong.

It’s not surprising that this last group would be larger in older generations not just because of the broader education of the young. Those who’ve been members the longest are the ones who feel they have the most to lose.

They have relied on their religious institutions for security for more years. They may have become religiously-addicted.

And there will be a percentage in every generation that uses religion as an addiction as long as addictions are needed to cope with our society. They will be hard nuts to crack.

Fighting with those immovable ones though will sap the energy for changing the majority and prevent us from appreciating the progress that is taking place. [lambda]

Robert N. Minor, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas, is author of When Religion Is an Addiction; Scared Straight: Why It’s So Hard to Accept Gay People and Why It’s So Hard to Be Human and Gay & Healthy in a Sick Society. Contact him at www.

Caring companies: collaborating for community.

Full Text:


GOOD THINGS HAPPEN when community and business come together. When the forces of on-the-ground know-how, passion and commitment to cause combine with the human and financial resources that a company can marshal–the outcomes can be astounding. The acts of planting trees or stocking food banks gain the power to build futures and save lives.


Imagine Canada’s Caring Company program works to support Canada’s leading corporate citizens in their efforts to build healthy and prosperous communities all across the country. Best examples of this work are celebrated semi-annually through the Canadian Business and Community Partnership Awards.


It all starts with common ground. Where there is shared understanding and commitment to cause the seeds of community building can flourish.

Joint ownership is also key to success. Both parties recognize that together their impact can be much greater than what they might accomplish alone.

When roles are clear and both partners are positioned to do what they do best, magic happens.

And, ultimately, it takes patience and perseverance to realize the best outcomes. Great partners know that good work takes time and discipline.

There is a sweet spot where the needs of community and the interests of business meet and produce extraordinary results. The examples profiled here are just a few of the innovative and impactful initiatives carried out by a small sample of Caring Companies. Each example tells a story of impact; together they reflect the hallmarks of business and community partnerships.


Youth in Canada today are less inclined to choose science as their career of choice. As an innovative technology company, 3M aims to apply its unique approaches to address social issues. Together with Let’s Talk Science (LTS)–a national charity that promotes children and youth engagement in science–they have delivered science competitions in 11 communities across Canada. 3M scientists work actively with LTS experts to develop challenges for the youth; company volunteers provide hands-on support at competitions and in-house corporate creative personnel produced a promotional video to turn more young people on to the marvels of science.


The Duke of Edinburgh’s Awards helps create young leaders by encouraging youth to invest their time, energy and efforts to set and achieve goals. But the young people who could stand to benefit the most were not getting involved. In stepped TD Waterhouse. The company was on the lookout for an initiative that would make a difference in the lives of young people. The Investing in Youth Initiative launched as a pilot in three cities and later expanded to nine urban centres. The program also targets disabled youth–more than 5,000 inner city youth and more than 400 youth with disabilities are now involved. TD Waterhouse employees, in the nine participating cities, who are actively involved and Duke of Edinburgh’s Award participants roll up their sleeves at the Shoreline Clean-up and Tree Days. As a result of this deliberate action at-risk youth are now given the tools to impact positively on their futures and the lives of others.

Note: Honourable Mention


After identifying poverty reduction/food security as an issue that resonated with their core values, Investors Group entered into a partnership with Food Banks Canada to support the cause. What started small with local offices engaging with local food banks has led to an organizational transformation and a strengthened food bank network. The partnership has evolved over ten years amounting to more than $3.4 million in funding, countless volunteer hours and leveraged support from the company’s advertising agency for a national campaign. Thanks to Hunger Awareness Day and other high profile efforts the cause of hunger is high on the public agenda.


Poverty, unemployment and youth disengagement are just some of the challenges facing Toronto’s high density St. James Town community. Their neighbour, Manulife Financial, knew that many minds and hands were required to address these complex and interconnected issues. As a result of 26 stakeholder interviews, a new program was born to strengthen the community from within. A dozen local service providers–committed to education, the environment, literacy, recreation and skills development and training–were identified and funded to build the long-term health and welfare of the neighbourhood. In addition to financial resources, hundreds of Manulife employees have given their time tutoring and greening school yards and have donated 10,000 books and hundreds of items of clothing. The company also opens its doors for a weekly homework club, and other activities.

Note: Large Business Award Winner


The partnership of TELUS and Tree Canada began with a single $10,000 donation to a school greening project. Thirteen years later the collaboration has helped green 450 schools across the country providing educational, environmental and health benefits to children. More than 230,000 trees have been planted across Canada, leading to the restoration of portions of BC’s forests, the reclaiming of farmland in Alberta and Saskatchewan to support water retention and wildlife habitat and the transformation of landfill sites in Quebec and Manitoba.


In 1996 The Boys and Girls Club of Summerside, Prince Edward Island had less than 20 members, one struggling program and a large deficit. This all changed when Rocky Arsenault of Remax Harbourside Realty decided to step in. With an initial cash gift of $2,000 to launch a breakfast program, the club’s prospects began to change for the better. A former club member himself, Arsenault hosts luncheons to inspire other local businesses to support the club. He and his staff give their time to fundraise, supervise and mentor the kids. They also lend technical expertise to develop new programming like the Top Grades for Trades program that lines up club alumni working in the trades to speak to current youth members about making successful employment choices. They gain on-site knowledge too by touring a cottage construction site. Arsenault’s realty company sells the finished cottage with all net proceeds going to the Boys and Girls Club of Summerside. This accumulated support has led to the provision of more than 80,000 free breakfasts since the start of the partnership.

Note: Small Business Award Winner


IMPACT! is a partnership between The Co-operators, The University of Guelph, The David Suzuki Foundation, The Natural Step Canada and a host of academic institutions across Canada. IMPACT! lets students explore real sustainability solutions with national business and sustainability leaders. Participants become eligible of IMPACT! program funding in order to implement self-generated sustainability initiatives. Projects are posted on the IMPACT! website homepage in order to extend reach and stimulate additional activity. This partnership recognizes that engaged and informed youth are the essential elements of a sustainable future. The next IMPACT! conference is in September 2011.


Caring Company program participants make a multi-year commitment to:

  •  Donate a minimum of 1% pre-tax profits to nonprofit organizations;
  •  Champion and sustain at least one community investment project; and
  •  Produce one public report describing the company’s community activities.

Imagine Canada is a charitable organization whose cause is Canada’s charities and nonprofits. We strengthen the sector’s collective voice, act as a forum and meeting place and provide a supportive environment for organizations to build stronger communities.

Imagine Canada salutes our Caring Companies for championing the importance of supporting Canada’s charities and nonprofits in every corner of our community to make a difference in the lives of more than 32 million Canadians:

Acklands-Grainger Inc.

Alterna Savings

AstraZeneca Canada Inc.


Bayer Inc.

BC Hydro

Blazing Design inc.

Blitz Media

Cambrian Credit Union Limited


Carters Professional Corporation

Cenovus Energy Inc.

Charitel Inc



Coast Capital Savings Credit Union

Community First Credit Union Limited

Co-operators Group Limited, The

Community Savings Credit Union

Cooper’s Office Supply Co. Limited

CUMIS Group, The

Deliver Good


Dexterity Consulting

Dundee Wealth Management Inc

Empire Life Insurance Company, The

Encana Corporation

ENMAX Corporation

Envision Financial

Ernst & Young LLP

EuroAmerican Communication

Fairmount Books Inc.

Farm Credit Canada

First Calgary

Froggy Fundraising Inc.

Gartner Lee Limited

George Fierheller

GlaxoSmithKline Inc.

GrantStream Inc

Great-West Life Assurance Company, London Life and Canada Life

Harvey McKinnon Associates

Henderson Partners LLP

Highstreet Asset Management

Hooper Law Office

Imperial Tobacco Limited *

Investors Group Inc.

James Richardson & Sons Limited


Johnston Group Inc

KCI (Ketchum Canada Inc.)

Kingston Community Credit Union


Leman Group

Liquid Capital Pacific Corp.

Loblaw Companies Limited

Mackenzie Financial

Manifest Communications Inc

Manitoba Lotteries Corporation

Manulife Financial

Mawer Investment Management Limited

McMillan Marketing

Midlyn Human Resources Communications

Molson Coors Canada

Navigator Limited

NEWALTA Corporation

Nexen Inc.

North Shore Credit Union

Nyman Ink

Paladin Labs Inc.

Partnership Group–Sponsorship Specialists

Peak of the Market

Pear Tree Financial

Pfizer Canada Inc

Phoenix Group, The

Power Corporation of Canada

Prospera Credit Union

Prosperity One Credit Union



ReMax Harbourside Realty

Research in Motion *

Rio Tinto Alcan

Roche Canada

Rogers Communications Inc

Sandstone Asset Management Inc.

sanofi aventis


SaskEnergy Inc.



Sears Canada

Selectpath Benefits & Financial Inc.

Shoppers Drug Mart

Smith’s Funeral Homes (Burlington) Limited

SPM Group Ltd

Stratos Inc

Superior Credit Union Limited

Syngenta Crop Protections Canada, Inc.

2H2M Services

TD Bank Financial Group

Teck Resources Limited


3M Canada

Touchworks Communications inc.

Trico Homes Inc.

Unilever Canada

United Communities Credit Union Limited

Vigilant Futures

Westminster Savings Credit Union

Whirl Inc.

Winch Group Inc, The

Windsor Family Credit Union

Woodbine Entertainment Group

Xerox Canada Ltd.

List as of June 2, 2011.

* Caring Company Affiliate

If you’re a company who cares, we urge you to do what you can to stay committed to your good work in the community. Contact us today to find out how we can make your job easier by joining a growing network of business leaders committed to supporting community.

TEL (416) 597-2293 x254

TOLL-FREE 1 (800) 263-1178 x254





Full Text:

Byline: Naureen Khan and Christopher Snow Hopkins

Interest Groups : James Duff

Educating the public about constitutional liberties has always been close to James Duff’s heart. That particular passion is what got him involved with the Freedom Forum, the organization that operates the Newseum and champions First Amendment rights. This summer, Duff, 57, takes over as president and CEO of the forum. He inherits the position from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Charles Overby, who is retiring.


“The freedoms that are embodied in our Constitution and the fact that our courts are protecting those freedoms distinguishes us from all other countries around the world,C[yen] Duff says. “The only way to preserve those freedoms is to have an educated public.C[yen]

Duff will be leaving his job as chief administrative officer of the U.S. Courts, a position that Chief Justice John Roberts asked him to assume in 2006. In that post, Duff presides over 35,000 employees and a $7 billion budget. “Working with our federal judges has been a real honor,C[yen] he says. “The opportunity to work with them to preserve the independence of the judiciary and obtain needed resources for the proper functioning has been very rewarding.C[yen]

Hailing from Hamilton, Ohio, Duff attended the University of Kentucky, where he was a basketball team walk-on, before arriving in Washington in 1975 and earning his law degree from Georgetown University. Duff has dabbled on Capitol Hill, been in private practice, and worked in the chambers of several Supreme Court justices. He currently teaches an undergraduate course on civil liberties at Georgetown.

Naureen Khan

Hill People : Kristie Greco

Like many Capitol Hill faithful, Kristie Greco started down the path to public service as an intern. An educational summer spent in the office of Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa., while she was a student at Villanova led to a job as a staff assistant and then a legislative correspondent for the lawmaker. Greco, 36, has been climbing up the Hill career ladder in the 13 years since then, most recently serving as communications director for Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn of South Carolina. Now, she is packing her bags and heading south to Charlotte, N.C., where she will be communications director for the Democratic National Convention.

“We’ll be preparing to nominate the president and vice president for reelection,C[yen] Greco says, and will “handle the planning and outreach to the community of Charlotte, the state of North Carolina, and the region.C[yen] When the time comes, she adds, “we’ll be communicating the priorities of the convention and the nominee.C[yen]

Greco cut her teeth as press secretary for Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., from 2000 to ‘o6. When she joined Clyburn’s staff, the South Carolinian was chairman of the House Democratic Caucus but still a relatively unknown figure on the national stage. After Democrats won control of the House in 2006 and Clyburn became majority whip, Greco began playing in an altogether different ball game, working with the entire party leadership to shape the Democrats’ message and get it out to districts across the country.

“The transition C* to the majority meant the change from fighting to be relevant to everything you do is front-page news,C[yen] she says.

Working to make the often-esoteric nuts and bolts of policy and legislating accessible to the American public keeps Greco challenged and engaged.

“Capitol Hill is very policy driven,C[yen] she says. “The legalese in a bill doesn’t translate very well to the front page of a newspaper or the evening news, so I think that step is very important–communicating to people how the legislation directly impacts their lives.C[yen]

During her five years with Clyburn, Greco cites promoting Democrats’ landmark legislative accomplishments–from passing health care reform to imposing new regulations on Wall Street–as one highlight and witnessing the election of the first African-American president through the eyes of the highest-ranking black member of the Democratic Party as another.

“The people who work here are dedicated to what they do and are passionate about what they do, and that’s invigorating and inspiring,C[yen] Greco says. “To collaborate with them–whether it’s a colleague or a member or a reporter–is very rewarding.C[yen]


Consulting Game: William Navas

Toward the beginning of his tenure at the Navy Department, Maj. Gen. William Navas sat down with his boss.

“Look, 70 percent of the Navy’s budget is spent on people,C[yen] he told then-Navy Secretary Gordon England. “It’s not on airplanes, it’s not on ships, and it’s not on steaming hours. It’s on people-related costs: housing, medical, retirement, and moving people from place to place.C[yen]

In delivering his report, Navas exploded “the old mentality that people are cheap and equipment is expensive.C[yen] That paradigm, he says, does not fit the realities of an all-volunteer force, in which the Navy must entice “the best and the brightestC[yen] away from the private sector.

Navas, 68, retired from the military earlier this year but has agreed to work part-time at government-relations shop Dawson and Associates, with one proviso: “Like I told Bob Dawson,C[yen] the firm’s president and founder, “ever since I was commissioned in 1965, I have been in charge of something. I’d like to be part of a crew, not a crew chief.C[yen]

Navas was born in MayagE-ez, Puerto Rico. His great-great-grandfather emigrated from Valencia, Spain, in the mid-18th century. Denied the familial patrimony (which, by law, was bequeathed to his older brother), Navas’s forebear had three choices: the military, the clergy, or the New World. He and another brother–also barred from the family estate–set out for Puerto Rico in the 1750s.

Navas, like his 92-year-old father, studied civil engineering at the University of Puerto Rico. After graduating, he was commissioned in the Army and later found himself in the jungles of Vietnam, where he commanded 160 combat engineers as they divested mountaintops of vegetation; cleared minefields; repaired roads; and built trenches, water towers, and sandbag embankments.


After the war, Navas established an engineering and land-development firm in western Puerto Rico where he worked for 10 years. In 1981, he came to Washington to study at the National War College at Fort Lesley J. McNair. Shortly thereafter, he returned to active duty, with assignments to Panama, Barbados, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic.

When President Bush took office in 2001, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called on former Army Secretary John Marsh–who had mentored Navas–to help him restructure the department. Marsh recommended his former protE[umlaut]gE[umlaut] for a top position in the Navy.

Christopher Snow Hopkins

Consulting Game: Daniel Franklin

Daniel Franklin’s career has spanned three professions over two decades and is propelled by a single quest. “I have always been fascinated by the question of why people think what they think,C[yen] Franklin says, “and why they change their minds.C[yen]

That’s the basis of his work today with the Benenson Strategy Group, a Washington polling and consulting firm, where last month Franklin was named a principal. He will continue advising clients while taking on a heavier share of internal responsibilities.

“The simplest way of putting it is, we have a range of clients who have questions about how they should proceed on important strategic challenges, given the state of public opinion,C[yen] he says. “My job is to figure out what is the best way to proceed.C[yen]

Franklin, 39, started at Benenson in 2006 and has had a busy five years since then. He was lead pollster for Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and New York Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, as well as for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s independent-expenditure campaigns in 2006, 2008, and 2010. He worked for lead pollster Joel Benenson on the team that conducted polling and communications research for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. In addition, Franklin has done work for a number of corporate and nonprofit clients ranging from the National Football League and the New York State Public Service Commission to T-Mobile and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Early in his career, Franklin’s interest in what makes people tick manifested itself as a love for journalism. A native of Dayton, Ohio, he recalls being intrigued from a young age by the newspaper world.

“I remember my eyes just getting wide at the thrill of watching newspaper [printing presses],C[yen] he says. “It was beautiful, and it really got to me. I totally fell in love with it.C[yen]

Franklin spent his undergraduate years at Columbia as an editor at his college newspaper, The Spectator, and landed as a writer and editor for Washington Monthly after graduating. He has also freelanced for Time magazine, USA Today, Slate, Mother Jones, and The American Prospect, but has at several points in his career felt compelled to get off the sidelines. “I loved being a journalist, but I always felt that I wanted to be not just reporting on the decisions being made but also contributing to them,C[yen] Franklin says. The impulse led him to work as a speechwriter for Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend from 1996 to 2001 and for Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in 2002 and 2003.

The world of polling and strategic consulting held a special appeal because it combined the skills he had learned as a journalist and a speechwriter–allowing him to get into people’s heads and put that information to good use. He is currently based in Manhattan.

“When I am able to conduct a focus group with ordinary people on economic issues or social issues or even something as simple as a product, I can understand how people are living; that’s fascinating,C[yen] Franklin says. “It is extraordinary to be in the ring when important things are being discussed and determined.C[yen]

Out of the Shadows… The GOP’s Visible Primary.

Full Text:

Byline: Reid Wilson

CONCORD, N.H.–It is a bitterly cold night in late January. Radio weather reports call the temperature, which hovers around zero degrees and will drop into negative territory in an hour or so, “unbearably cold.C[yen] In a conference-center ballroom a mile north of the state capital, about 75 Republican activists are eating bacon-wrapped scallops and mini-quiches. They are here to see a man who might be the next president of the United States of America. But there is no presidential candidate in sight.

Well, Tim Pawlenty is here.

Pawlenty, former Minnesota governor and son of a truck driver, is ostensibly here as part of a nationwide book tour, but everyone in the room is wise to his purpose. They seem to enjoy watching Pawlenty perform the awkward dance of the noncandidate that requires would-be presidential hopefuls to try to impress activists and woo potential backers with their moves while officially pretending that they’re not on the dance floor at all. The performance is part of what journalist and author Arthur Hadley described in the title of his 1976 book The Invisible Primary.


Hadley used the phrase to characterize the courtship ritual between presidential candidates and national and local power brokers in the months before the public tunes into the race. Historically, the invisible primary has been the stage of the race that maximizes the influence of the party elites, well before the actual primaries and caucuses when voters speak the loudest. As Pawlenty’s travels indicate, the contenders still focus enormous energy on corralling that elite support. But the world around this competition has transformed since Hadley chronicled it.

Thanks to the proliferation of political media, the constant demand for new developments in a 24-hour news cycle, and the booming industry of political consultants, every twist and turn in the presidential nominating contest is examined, tweeted, blogged, pored over, written about, and dissected. The candidates are debating each other and appearing on national broadcast and cable television more than ever. The invisible primary, in short, is out in the open, and that has fundamentally changed its nature. No longer a process that begins in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the boardrooms where large fundraisers congregate, it is now a national affair that invites far more scrutiny–from the media and from activists in all 50 states.

This new environment is especially changing the roles of Iowa and New Hampshire, which historically have provided the principal stages on which the invisible primary unfolded. Activists in both states have always displayed a kind of fatalism, happy with their function as gatekeepers to the presidential-nominating system but convinced that, in the end, another state will someday steal the stage. So far, though, no other state has successfully encroached on their positions at the head of the line.

But even so, in 2012, Iowa and New Hampshire could be somewhat overshadowed as a national populist conservative movement assumes a more prominent role, and as candidates for the GOP nomination compete for exposure on the Fox News Channel and other outlets with big audiences among Republican activists. Despite those new dynamics, however, the results in Iowa and New Hampshire next winter will reverberate powerA fully through the rest of the nominating calendar. What’s changing is the way these two critical states reach their decisions.

The United States has not yet completely moved to a national presidential primary, but we are close enough that national influences will almost certainly have a big impact on the early nominating states, increasing the premium on money and national stature and reducing the importance of what makes those two states unique–individual voter contact.

All of this has reshaped the dynamics of the competition.

The model of a dark horse burrowing into Iowa and New Hampshire on a shoestring budget, impressing the key local officials and then rocketing to the top of the field after an upset in one of those early states–the model for candidates such as George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush–may be largely obsolete. To a much greater extent, a candidate today may need a national profile to succeed locally in Iowa and New Hampshire. Every Republican candidate is fighting a two-front war–one to stockpile support in the crucial first states, the other to build the national profile that will help attract that support in the first place.

“The significance of the invisible primary is not that it affects any voters, because it doesn’t,C[yen] said Howard Dean, the former Democratic presidential candidate and party chairman. “But it does affect what the national media is saying about you; and, of course, people in Iowa and New Hampshire are watching the national media just like everybody else. And that makes a difference.C[yen]


Pawlenty, who left office last month after two terms as governor, is not an official candidate, legally speaking. In fact, he is not even formally exploring a run for the presidency. To do so, legally speaking, would require him to file forms with the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Practically speaking, even exploring a run demands an announcement speech; a tour of early primary and caucus states; a rollout of a campaign narrative; and an organization to set up those trips, craft that narrative, and raise the money to pay for it all.

For all the talk about Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, John Thune, and any of the other contenders on whom the media has conferred the status of Legitimate Presidential Candidate, none has filed papers giving notice that he or she will seek office. They demure, insisting that the decision is months away and that they must talk it over first with their families (on a recent dog walk, Pawlenty’s daughter told him she did not want him to “embarrass the family,C[yen] he said).

The modern system of jockeying before the first votes are cast, the invisible primary, has been described in any number of American political classics: Theodore H. White’s The Making of the President 1960; Richard Ben Cramer’s What It Takes, about the 1988 campaign; Michael Lewis’s Trail Fever, on the 1996 race; and Dana Milbank’s Smashmouth, covering the 2000 contest. Game Change, by John Heilmann and Mark Halperin, is the latest addition to the library.

As chronicled by Hadley, the invisible primary tests a candidate’s performance against six criteria.

  •  Psychology: Is the candidate ready, both for the campaign and for the ultimate reward–the presidency?
  •  Staff: Can the candidate attract those who will help him or her win the nomination?
  •  Strategy: Can the candidate develop the long-range vision that guides a campaign to victory?
  •  Money: Can a candidate raise the money needed to compete in a national campaign?
  •  Media: Can the candidate convince the press that he or she is serious enough to warrant coverage–and then successfully handle that coverage?
  •  Constituency-building: Can the candidate attract the support from key party factions required to construct a winning coalition?

All of these dimensions remain relevant today. The psychology of running is an often-overlooked factor because it takes place long before a candidate earns legitimacy. A candidate has to look in the mirror and see the next president of the United States looking back, and then has to consider whether running is worth giving up such a large portion of his or her life. For some candidates, it’s the last decision about their employment that they will ever make.

“Running is the easy part. If you get it, you’re talking about all-consuming. Do you want to give 10 years of your life? Because you have to be prepared to do that,C[yen] Barbour, the Mississippi governor, told me in November. “You have to be prepared to run, win, and serve two terms. Whether you end up succeeding or not, you have to be prepared to do that, and that’s a very big commitment. You know, I’m 63 years old. So I’d spend the rest of my useful life essentially doing nothing but this. There’s a lot to think about, because if you do it, you owe the country to be in whole hog.C[yen]

Whether one can attract the necessary staff is always a question, too. Romney, who is considered virtually certain to seek the nomination again in 2012 after falling short in 2008, has already answered part of that question. He has most of the upper echelon of his campaign team in place. Beth Myers and Eric Fehrnstrom, two longtime aides, will continue in key management and communications roles. Former Republican National Committee Political Director Rich Beeson will serve the same role in the campaign. Romney’s operatives have signed up a pollster, Public Opinion Strategies, and observers estimate that three-quarters of his 2008 staff will be back in some capacity or another.

Romney makes for an excellent example of the importance of strategy, as well, though mostly as a model to avoid. In 2008, he tried to outspend the field, dumping millions of dollars of his own money into Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada; he also split his time between the four early-voting states. But he came in second in three of them, and even though he won Nevada by an overwhelming margin, he couldn’t build enough momentum.

This year, Romney’s strategists have had preliminary discussions about skipping Iowa, where the social conservatives who dominate the electorate have been cold to his potential candidacy. He has made no decision, but it could make sense for Romney to begin his campaign on the demographically and ideologically friendlier, if still frozen, turf of New Hampshire. Romney’s team must also decide whether to continue portraying the candidate as a hard-core social conservative or to play up his credentials as a turnaround artist who can work the same magic on the nation’s economy as he did on Domino’s, Staples, and the Salt Lake City Olympics.

The importance of fundraising has grown since 1976. When Hadley wrote, money could follow success: A candidate could translate strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire into donations that would carry him through the remainder of the contest. Now, the relationship more often works in reverse: Candidates who raise large sums acquire a legitimacy that helps them attract votes in the early states.

“People in Iowa and New Hampshire are watching the national media just like everybody else. And that makes a difference.C[yen] –Howard Dean

In 2008, for instance, Barack Obama’s prodigious fundraising helped establish him as a serious competitor to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who benefited from much more establishment support early on. Once Obama and Clinton established their blistering fundraising pace, even as well-funded a candidate as John Edwards struggled to stay inthe game.


Similarly, before the 2004 primary season, Dean was a no-name Vermont governor, one of the few Democrats to dare speak out against the war in Iraq. He was viewed as a long-shot candidate until his antiwar message caught fire and his donations skyrocketed through late 2003.

“We did a lot of groundwork, but the thing that really moved us up in the invisible primary was money,C[yen] Dean said. “We just blew people away in that summer by raising more money than John Kerry and John Edwards, and that totally flipped everybody. And what happens is, the media starts talking about you a lot more. It’s a vicious circle on the way up, and it’s a vicious circle on the way down.C[yen]

Money will loom just as large in establishing the GOP pecking order for 2012. This year, for example, Rick Santorum will struggle to break through the media-imposed glass ceiling. A former senator from Pennsylvania, and someone with a strong reputation among social conservatives, Santorum nonetheless faces widespread skepticism that he can raise enough money to compete on the presidential playing field. Even potential candidates who have as many credentials as Pawlenty or Thune, the senator from South Dakota, risk being marginalized if they cannot remain competitive in the money chase.

Cash will also be a challenge for Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor who is President Obama‘s ambassador to China but submitted his resignation letter on Monday in advance of a possible presidential bid. Veteran GOP political strategist John Weaver, who is advising Huntsman, said that dark horses have to employ a different strategy to tap into money and volunteers.

“It used to be [that a candidate] could go and run an Iowa-centric campaign or a New Hampshire-centric campaign. Those days are kind of gone. But on the other hand, because of the way people receive information, it’s easier for the dark horse to organize because our party is not as hierarchical as it used to be,C[yen] Weaver said. “It’s becoming increasingly easy to go around party bosses and to organize independently of that. So that makes it easier for a long shot or a dark horse to organize.C[yen]

Finally, the candidates who will run this year will make their pitches to various constituencies within the Republican Party, in hopes of securing a foundation from which to launch. Daniels, the Indiana governor and former director of the Office of Management and Budget, would lay a strong claim to fiscal conservatives. Former Alaska Gov. Palin and former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee each have valuable inroads among social conservatives. Barbour would be a strong draw for Southerners; Pawlenty boasts of doing well among Sam’s Club Republicans, suburban middle-class voters who care more about pocketbook issues than about grand economic theories or hot-button social issues.


In the broadest respect, the tests candidates have to pass in the run-up to the first caucuses and primaries–tentatively scheduled for early February 2012–are pretty much the same as they were 35 years ago, when Hadley surveyed the field. But with the advance of information technology, the explosion of the professional political industry, and the massive influx of money, the dynamics of running for president are clearly much more complex today.

One of the biggest changes is the intensity and ubiquity of media coverage. News from the minuscule to the grand grabs attention. The political world took note when Romney signed Beeson. Some observers who were underwhelmed by Pawlenty’s first forays into Iowa and New Hampshire, convinced that his speechmaking lacked passion, listened again after he began showing some spark. Democratic operatives actively shopped a Weekly Standard article in which Barbour made ill-advised comments about his hometown’s history during the civil-rights era. And despite Daniels’s strikingly honest confession that he is publicly contemplating a run only to keep his name in the national conversation, he is seen as a strong contender if his considerations turn serious.

As these and other Republicans prepare to run for president, they will have to include in their calculations a core of national conservatives who will demand their own attention. Candidates of both parties have attended “cattle callsC[yen] in and around Washington for years, meeting with special-interest groups eager to hear a potential president talk about their issues. But the rise of the populist tea party movement has added a new twist: Instead of speaking to aspecific group, candidates will now be expected to follow a narrow set of ideological premises that the tea party movement purports to espouse.

These newly energized conservatives have proven particularly effective at deciding Republican primaries and taking on establishment candidates. Two senators lost their primaries in 2010, and tea party groups have their eye on several others–including Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Orrin Hatch of Utah, and even Bob Corker of Tennessee. In the last cycle, organizations such as the Senate Conservatives Fund controlled by Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, the tea party-based FreedomWorks, and the Tea Party Express poured millions of dollars into ads that took aim at moderate Republican contenders.

If those populist groups begin targeting one or more of the 2012 Republican presidential contenders–and they almost certainly will–it could shake up the field in a big way. A cross word from DeMint, who is a hero to the tea party movement and one of the prime movers against moderate Republicans in party primaries, could do more damage than any attack ad sponsored by a special-interest group. “You still have to focus on the early relationships and the early unique issues that Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina might have, but you’re playing to a national audience constantly, which you didn’t used to,C[yen] said Weaver, the Republican strategist.

GOP candidates have another consideration to make, that of the party’s virtual media enterprise, the Fox News Channel. The Republican emphasis on Fox is a symptom of both a national and a hyper-local campaign. After all, candidates are aiming to sway conservative voters, and whether those voters are in Mason City, Iowa, or Manchester, N.H., many of them have their televisions tuned to Fox. Every exposure on the cable channel is a special moment for a Republican campaign.

Sitting in a hotel bar just hours after debuting a web video, Pawlenty’s top strategists watched with mouths agape as Greta Van Susteren played the entire 85-second video during her nightly Fox broadcast. They celebrated a little more when an Associated Press story based on that night’s event scrolled across the ticker on the bottom of the screen.

As recent history has shown, the winner of the invisible primary is by no means guaranteed to win the nomination. Veteran Democratic consultant Bob Shrum pointed to Obama, Kerry, and John McCain, all of whom won their respective nominations after having been judged by most observers as losers in the invisible primary. In 2008, Clinton and Romney were arguably better at the invisible primary maneuvering than Obama and McCain were. But once voters checked into the process, Obama proved that organization was more important than Clinton’s name, and McCain’s story proved more attractive than Romney’s. Similarly, in 2004, Kerry lost the invisible primary to Dean, and yet voters trusted Kerry’s ability to win the general election more than Dean’s.

“The invisible primaries are often deceptive,C[yen] Shrum said. “This desire we have to know the results before the votes are cast has created a series of benchmarks that may mislead us.C[yen]


Tonight, Pawlenty insists, he is just selling a book. He is in the middle of a publicity tour that will take him to 22 stops across nine states, including, certainly coincidentally, Iowa and New Hampshire. The book is part autobiography (blue-collar truck driver’s son from a Democratic family who grew up to become a conservative governor in a liberal state–with a healthy dose of personal faith thrown in) and part philosophical treatise (end bailouts, cut spending, force government to live within its means, broadcast a strong America abroad, and protect the nation from radical jihadism at home).

Pawlenty will all but certainly file the papers necessary to make his presidential bid official. Almost no candidate reaches this point without at least taking the first formal steps toward getting into the race. Pawlenty takes pains to emphasize that he has made no final decision, and his staff sticks to the same story. But his early supporters, familiar with the game, roll their eyes, certain that he is but weeks away from scratching the word “presumedC[yen] from in front of “presidential candidate.C[yen]

“We can’t actually have [business] cards yet,C[yen] John Lyons, a Portsmouth lawyer, chairman of the state Board of Education, and chairman of Pawlenty’s New Hampshire political action committee, says, trying and failing to suppress a smile. “Because, you know, we’re here on a book tour.C[yen]

Some of the local and national reporters congregating for the event tease Pawlenty’s aides. They wonder if a line in his stump speech can be fairly described as a swipe, slap, shot, jab, dig, punch, poke, or prod at Romney. (One media theme at the moment is that Pawlenty and Romney are similar and thus will have to compete for similar voters.)

“The invisible primaries are often deceptive.C[yen] –Bob Shrum, Democratic strategist

But observing any of Pawlenty’s stops, it’s clear that for all the attention lavished on national groups and conservative luminaries, he still believes that there’s life in the old dark-horse strategy of assembling support, brick by brick, in the early states.

At a book event in Manchester, Pawlenty adviser Phil Musser takes special notice of Shaun Doherty, a 24-year-old who graduated last year from Rivier College. Doherty is also a state representative, one of 400 in New Hampshire who make the state’s lower chamber the third-largest legislative body in the English-speaking world, behind only the British House of Commons and the U.S. House of Representatives. Musser introduces Doherty as someone to keep an eye on; he has worked for McCain and Rep. Frank Guinta, who represents this district in Washington. Musser guides Doherty to Pawlenty’s table for an autograph and a photo.

Jeanne Notter, a newly elected state representative, also wants an autograph. Pawlenty’s PAC wrote a check to Notter’s campaign, and he phoned her to congratulate her when she won. Other minor luminaries got calls, too; newly elected state Republican Party Chairman Jack Kimball talked to Pawlenty and also got a congratulatory message from Romney. House Speaker Bill O’Brien took calls from Pawlenty, Palin, and Romney after he won the Legislature’s top job. Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt heard from Pawlenty, too.

All of these could prove valuable friends for any presidential candidate. But as the race for the presidency has evolved, a good night on a nationally televised debate next spring might prove more valuable yet.