Christopher Caldwell is that rare bird: a truly thoughtful conservative. His most recent column for the Financial Times reminds us that whoever wins the election tonight will have a huge economic problem to solve, and that we as a people in the West are in poor condition psychologically to face it:

We should worry less about the bigness of our problems than about
the smallness of our character. We are out of practice at handling a
world of repossessed cars, hand-me-down clothes and canceled vacations
and graduation parties. For many decades, people were steeled against
recession by a knowledge that things could be a lot worse. Britain had
memories of postwar rationing. In the US, 8m people were unemployed
throughout the 1930s. Even people in their mid-40s may remember Edward
Heath’s three-day week and Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech.

The US is not the same
country it was the last time people had to tighten their belts. It has
changed socially, economically and demographically. The range of
problems has widened and the range of solutions has narrowed. Back in
the 1970s, there were relatively few people with credit cards and
hardly any who were “maxed out” on half a dozen. But the US now has
$2,600bn (€2,000bn, £1,600bn) in outstanding non-mortgage debt, and The
New York Times recently reported that 5.5 per cent of outstanding
credit card debt had been written off by card issuers as losses.
Indications are that the credit card problem in Britain is considerably
worse.

Many of the arrangements and institutions that got
Americans through the 1970s are gone. It is not often remembered how
socialistic the US was in those days. It was a disguised socialism,
administered by huge corporations, but it was socialism. The flabbiness
and misrule of American companies was a kind of insulation. No one
mentions it now, not even in the heat of an election campaign.
Republicans fear telling voters that things of value have indeed been
stripped from them in recent decades, just as Democrats warned.
Democrats fear telling voters that heavy-handed socialism is indeed
their ideal, just as Republicans warned.

Is offering a Federal extension of unemployment past thirteen weeks "heavy-handed socialism?"

From Eleanor Clift's article on "Wal-Mart Women" in Newsweek, in which she explains why under-$60,000 a year women will not (contrary to McCain's pollster) save his flailing campaign (see here).

What's shaping up is not comparable to '92, the last time a Democrat
won the White House. "It's much more serious and devastating to
Republicans," says Stan Greenberg, who was Bill Clinton's pollster.
Democrats lost seats in '92; Clinton had no coattails. Obama may enter
the White House with close to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate
and a doubling of the Democratic margin in the House. This is a
watershed election. Typically, every four years, somebody wins,
somebody loses, and life goes on. But Obama represents generational
change that has huge political repercussions. He wins 63 percent of
voters between the ages of 18 and 29. For the Republicans, "It's not
just a lost election, it's a lost generation," says Greenberg.

Who
will they blame for this turn of events? "Overwhelmingly, it's you
guys," Greenburg told reporters at a Washington breakfast last week.
Republicans are convinced that media bias in favor of Obama tipped the
election in his favor, and that coverage of Sarah Palin has been
unfairly harsh, conveying sexism as well as anti-conservative bias.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, always a GOP crowd pleaser, calls
the mainstream media "Pravda." Blaming the press may feel good. But it
won't solve the problem of a party that has lost its way.

Blame the media or blame themselves. Is it really any wonder they blame the media?

In his recent appearance in Florida with Obama, Bill Clinton explains why he thinks Obama will be a good President, as only he can:

OK, then you got to see the reaction to the financial crisis in
America nearly coming off the wheels. Having the wheels nearly run off.
I saw this up close. You know what he did? First he took a little heat
for not saying much.

I knew what he was doing. He talked to his advisers, he talked to my
economic advisers. He called Hillary. He called me. He called Warren
Buffett and he called Paul Volcker. He called all those people and you
know why, because he knew it was complicated and before he said
anything he wanted to understand.

Folks, if we have not learned anything, we have learned that we need
a president who wants to understand and who can understand. Who can
understand; yes, he can.

Now, wait a minute.

The second thing and this meant more to me than anything else and I
haven't cleared this with him. And he may even be mad at me for saying
this so closest to the election but I know what else he said to his
economic advisers. He said tell me what the right thing to do is.
What's the right thing for America, and don't tell me what's popular.
You tell me what's right and I'll figure out how to sell it. That's
what a president does in a crisis, what is right for America. And you
know after this election there are going to be a lot of rough times
ahead and you know it as well as I do. You have got to have a president
who can understand and then has the fortitude to stand up and tell you,
you hired me to win for America. I've got to make this decision now.
This is the very best I can do. And I'm prepared to be held accountable.

I'm going to tell you something the way he handled this crisis and
the way you saw him talk about it in the second and third debate showed
that he will be a very, very fine decision maker working for the
American people.

[pic from WonderfulTime on Flickr]

From Don Young, Alaska's notorious anti-environmentalist, also facing corruption charges, a strangely guilt-ridden defense (via Roll Call) of his pal Ted Stevens after his conviction on seven counts:

“I can remember Richard Nixon, you know, his years of service, what
he’s done, and everybody [was] ridiculing him, and he ended up being
the greatest president in the history of our century. … The Senator
will be re-elected. He will appeal it. When he does go, he will win it
because there’s no way this is a jury of his peers.”

So Young told the Anchorage Daily News.

Amazing. If Richard Nixon was the greatest president in American history because he had to resign in disgrace, does that make Ted Stevens the greatest American senator, because he was convicted of taking kickbacks?

Just wondering.