"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology."


Sunday, December 30, 2007

On Mitt Romney

Throughout this perpetual presidential campaign of ‘08 Mitt Romney has struck me as that good guy in high school who portrays himself to be something he is not in an effort to convince the hot girl in school to go out with him. Every intimate account I have read of the governor has painted the picture of a decent and intelligent man whose greatest talent is his executive competence. His record of accomplishment in the private business sector is undoubtedly impressive, and to a certain extent so to is his record as governor of Massachusetts.

What’s more, as profiles have demonstrated in the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard, his approach to politics and the individual issues that present themselves in government is refreshingly non-ideological, based instead in assessing objective data and the various options available.

This is Governor Romney’s greatest asset, and should therefore be the theme of his campaign. Logically he should be running as an accomplished executive who will bring and utilize that prowess as the nation’s chief-executive, enabling him to resolve the various challenges that face this nation, notably deficit, debt, health-care, and Social Security.

But this has not been the message what I and I think many other Republicans have taken from his campaign. He has tried to present himself—in a field noted for its lack of a standard, consensus conservative—as the pro-life candidate in the race, the ideological representative of the culturally conservative base of the Republican Party.

The problem is that until very recently this was not reflected in his record in Massachusetts. He was, by his own admission, "operationally pro-choice" as a candidate for U.S. Senate in ‘94 and again as a candidate for governor in ‘02. At those times he presented himself in the terms I outlined above.

Running now for president, he has done an about face. I do not intend to question the personal validity of Governor Romney’s conversion in matters of life, and in fact welcome it1, but merely point out that this has understandably created concerns among the Republican electorate about the veracity of his principles. His evolving positions—on life and other issues—has given some cause to believe that he is willing to say what is necessary to get him elected, the consummate paragon of the stereotypical politician.

My advice to Governor Romney would be to stop trying to be something you are not—the tribune of the pro-life right—and run on your strengths; as the candidate with the best executive accomplishment and competence. That is a compelling message in an election where competence is of such salience.


1. As the editors of National Review have written on multiple occasions in this campaign, social conservatives should embrace and celebrate those who convert to their cause, not shun and question their motives. For the cause to succeed it needs to compel people to convert, in the exact manner Governor Romney has.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Sen. Obama on 'Face the Nation'

Sen. Obama appeared on Face the Nation this past Sunday and made a few comments worthy of examination and response.

Host Bob Schieffer asked him about recent comments from former President Clinton to the effect that Sen. Obama does not have the experience in government–specifically in foreign affairs–that entitle and qualify him to be President of the United States. The Senator parried the criticism by pointing out that President Clinton had met the same criticism in his run for President in ‘92, which clearly did not end up disqualifying him for the Presidency in November of that year, at least not in the minds of the American voters.

Sen. Obama is correct to a certain extent, in that the same criticism was directed towards then-Governor Clinton is now being directed towards Sen. Obama. But time and circumstance in 1992 and now are quite different.

In the former election year the nation was just emerging from victory in the Cold War and was witnessing the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the threat it had posed since the end of World War II. In consequence, the salience of foreign affairs faded dramatically in the mind of the American voter; it was "the economy, stupid." President Clinton was able to run on the "Peace Dividend", an implicit acknowledgment by Governor Clinton that he was indeed inexperienced and untested in the sphere of foreign affairs but that it did not matter and would not matter in a decade which has been dubbed by many—accurately in my mind—a "vacation from history."

Now the vacation is over. The United States is immersed in a struggle with radical Islam of a global scale and reach, the fulcrum of which is our involvement in Iraq. We are at a point there where the direction this nation decides to take in the next year or so will make all the difference in American victory or defeat.

Beyond Iraq, it is a dangerous world we live in. We are in a struggle with al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan that has never truly received the attention from this country and the global community that it warrants. Right next door we face a possibly explosive situation with the unrest and instability in Pakistan. We have made some progress in regards to the North Korean nuclear program, but must make a great deal more. Iran, despite a disingenuous NIE from the CIA contending otherwise, continues its advance towards possession of a nuclear arsenal, a development which could have devastatingly destabilizing effects in the Middle East. China continues to grow as a global power and contender with American hegemony, while Russia continues its slow march away from democracy and back towards a Soviet-style state.

In other words, foreign affairs matter a great deal this time around, and therefore so must experience in foreign affairs and issues of national security. This is not 1992, and what was not a disqualifier then is, or at least ought to be this time around.

Specific to Iraq, Sen. Obama demonstrated marked misunderstanding of the situation and dynamics in Iraq later in that same interview. As a result of the surge, said the Senator, all America has done is essentially come "full circle. We had intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government back in 2006; we saw a huge spike in violence, to horrific levels. The surge comes in and now we're back to where we were in 2006, with intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional Iraqi government."

That is simply not the case. Prior to and after the sharp spike in violence of which Sen. Obama spoke of, Iraq’s Sunni community was not only not participating in the political process, but they were actively supporting and participating in al-Qaeda’s and the insurgency’s war against that political process.

One year later this is not the case any longer. Because of the extra security and commitment provided by our surge in Iraq, Iraq’s Sunnis have had been given the cover to turn against al-Qaeda and re-enter Iraqi politics. Sunnis have indeed used this cover, comprehensively rejecting al-Qaeda and fighting against it with the cooperation, assistance, and support of the American military. They are participating in the defense and security of their own villages and towns, signing up for the local police forces and the Iraqi armed forces in astonishing numbers. There is also an irrefutable development and growth in Sunni political organization and participation.

The central government in Baghdad has indeed not passed oil-sharing, de-Baathification, and other pieces of legislation we in America would like to see it enact. But this does not render the surge a failure, nor should the success of the surge ultimately be determined based on whether or not the Iraqi government passes certain pieces of legislation. When it eventually comes time for history to render its verdict the surge will have succeeded if a viable representative government is ultimately in place where the country has a legal process and forum in which national issues, questions, and debates are legitimately decided and resolved. It will not be what the Iraqis agree to and enact that will matter, it will be if they have a legal and peaceful process in place through which to deal with matters. America will have succeeded if Iraq settles its issues through politics and not the barrel of a gun.

We have made progress towards this, and this is what delineates December ‘07 from December ‘06. Sen. Obama’s inability to recognize this demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Open Letter to Republican and General Voters

Friends and Fellow Americans:

For most of this campaign cycle I have supported the presidential candidacy of Mayor Rudy Guiliani. Recently I have seen fit to forge a different course. Accordingly, I endorse Senator John McCain for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

*****

Circumstances must always control the mind of the conscientious and reasoned voter. Two circumstances weigh upon me at this time, and ought to weigh upon every Republican voter.

The first is our party’s political straits. We are in rough shape. The President and standard-bearer of our party has poor approval ratings. We lost both houses of Congress last year, and face the prospect of further losses next year. In every poll voters prefer the generic Democrat over the Republican, for both Congress and the White House. Democrats now have a majority of the state governor’s mansions and a plurality of state legislatures as well.

In my admittedly brief political consciousness the Republican brand has never been mired in such public unpopularity, and lest we nominate the absolute right candidate next year Democrats will control both political branches of the federal government and the ability to shape the third, the judicial branch, in their favor. As Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnoru pointed out recently in a compelling article in National Review, the expansion of government that would surely ensue would "make voters less likely to turn toward conservatism in the future."

My friends, we cannot nominate the generic Republican. We need a nominee who transcends party, who can reach the American people on his own terms.

Senator McCain would be that nominee. Having run for President eight years ago and having been one of the most prominent elected officials in the federal government since, he has been introduced to the American people and has earned their admiration and respect. His record of nearly forty years of service to the United States, beginning with his heroic service as a pilot and POW in Vietnam, also needs no preface nor explanation.

As our party endeavors to recover from the stain of corruption and our lost standing as the party of competence, Senator McCain would be a standard-bearer with an integrity of granite. His career in the Senate has been marked by the pursuit of honest and accountable government (though this has admittedly led him to excess on occasion, see the McCain-Feingold Act).

Herein is part of the impetus for my departure from Mayor Giuliani. Rumors and reports of his ethical lapses as Mayor of New York City would only be a distraction in the general election, despite his other advantages, and this would be the last thing the party needs in the wake of Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney et al.1

This would not be the case with Senator McCain. He represents the best of the party regarding ethics, as well as our squandered instincts of fiscal discipline. As the Republican nominee Americans would see a man whom they could trust to be a good and dutiful steward of their hard-earned tax dollars.

What’s more, Senator McCain’s honesty and ethics would shine all the more brighter in comparison to Senator Clinton and her and her husband’s long list of ethical lapses, should she in fact be the Democrats’ nominee.

*****

That second of the two circumstances I spoke of earlier is Iraq and the broader war on terror. Presidential elections are obviously always important, but especially so when the nation is at war.

We are at war; at war with an insidious enemy which follows none of the conventional rules of war and basic standards of human decency. They kill blindly and indiscriminately, and in their twisted worship of death feel no hesitation in perishing themselves in the process.

In our history we have faced our share of threats, but none greater than that presented by these barbarians. To defeat them will require sustained national resolve on the part of the people, and commanders-in-chief with the personal fortitude and good wisdom and judgment to execute this war effectively.

Winning this war first requires us to win in Iraq, the place which our enemies themselves have declared its central front. From the very beginning of our involvement in Iraq Senator McCain has been a steadfast supporter of our military effort there and has recognized the vital strategic importance victory represents.

In this vain he had been a major critic of President Bush’s and then-Secretary Rumsfeld’s original counterinsurgency strategy—which was failing—and was the first elected official within the federal government to propose and support the current counterinsurgent strategy which has led to the recent dramatically positive improvements on the ground. These views have not always been popular, but they have always been right.

In this time and at this place in history such fortitude and good judgment is exactly what we need in our next President. More than any other candidate whose name is before the American people, Senator McCain can be expected and trusted to do right by our involvement in Iraq—to achieve victory there and to get us out when that has been achieved—and to do right by our prosecution of the broader war against extremist Islam. He is the man who is able to stand up to Democrats in Congress and those running for president whose policy is get out now, disastrous consequences of retreat and defeat be damned.

My fellow Republicans, I know Senator McCain is not a perfect conservative, and he has indeed taken a few positions with which you and I have disagreed. But there is no perfect conservative or Republican, and we certainly do not have the luxury of holding out for one now. Let us not fall into the temptation to compare every poor soul who seeks our party’s nomination to the late President Reagan, himself not a perfect conservative, and then reject them when they inevitably fail. President Reagan was a man whose memory should inspire us, not one whose ghost haunts us in our futile and self-defeating attempt to find him reincarnate in our next nominee.

Senator McCain is a strong, principled conservative and he has the best chance of any of the Republicans who would be our nominee of insuring that conservatism will have a home in the White House for the next four years.

*****
Circumstances always demand that certain figures rise to the occasion. This has especially been the case with America. At our founding we had George Washington. At our time of disunion we had Abraham Lincoln. At the time of world war we had Franklin Roosevelt. And in the face of an evil empire we had Ronald Reagan.

On this occasion—at this pivotal place in the history of our blessed republic—the occasion and the arena calls for Senator McCain. I have no doubt that he is the man for the moment.

I urge my fellow Republicans and my fellow Americans to join me in supporting Senator McCain for President of the United States.

Geoff Smock,
Pacific Lutheran University
1. Of the two—Senator McCain and Mayor Giuliani, both of whom I believe represent the party’s best chance of winning in the general—Senator McCain also stands the better chance of appealing to moderate Republicans, independents, and centrist Democrats while maintaining the pro-life portion of the Republican coalition within the party. I do not know if Mayor Giuliani could.