"The historical value of a conservative party is to act as a restraint on the reformist impulses of society and to provide a steadying hand for the ship of state. A conservativism that makes no demands and enforces no responsibilities is largely a rhetorical posture. Republicans denounce 'root-canal policies' as dangerous at the polls, forgetting that for someone with dental problems such unpleasant surgery is often the necessary price for restored health."

-- Lewis L. Gould, Grand Old Party: A History of The Republicans

Along with the companion history of the Democrats (Party of the People by Jules Witcover), this political history has been my reading material for the last few weeks ... combined we are talking about over a thousand pages, after all. Trying to cover the history of a party over two hundred years old and one fifty years old respectively is problematic, even at this length. The books focus more on the presidency than anything else, though Gould (a historian, while Witcover is a journalist) does a better job being comprehensive. Witcover tries too hard to summarize the history of the period per se, and bogs down in specific presidential convention vote counts. Gould was both the quicker and more enjoyable read, though both have merits for the political season.

Neither, however, explains the symbols (donkey and elephant) of each party!

[Update: Mr. Gould was kind enough to email me to thank me for this reference and remind that he "did try to explain the origins of the symbol of the elephant on page xii of the book and in the Nash cartoon of the donkey and the elephant that is also included." He summarized somewhat for space reasons. By "explain" I meant why was the donkey and elephant in particular chosen by Thomas Nast, etc., but I appreciate the clarification as well as the thanks.]

Other Political Thoughts: Gen. Clark's current spat with Howard Dean over whether he was asked to Dean's running mate suggests the troubling tendency of the general to be seen as abrasive and petty. This got him in some trouble when he was on active duty, and it is starting to show itself in the campaign on talk shows and elsewhere. What is the point of going as far as calling the frontrunner a "liar" about an issue that just cannot be proved one way or the other? The common sentiment is that Dean did consider, if not actually ask formerly, him for this role. On the other hand, as Dean notes, it is just too premature to do so "officially," and to make an issue of it is bad political form. And makes Clark look like an idiot.

Should foreigners be able to donate to domestic campaigns? I myself was sympathetic because of how much the U.S. affects the lives of foreigners, but then I'm pretty much of an absolutist. Therefore, I was interested in reading a more mainstream view that perhaps they should be able to do so.