Ellen Goodman has written a column this morning on some of the questions we should be discussing and considering regarding Sen. McCain’s age and the effect (if any) it has on his competence to be President. This is not the first time this issue has been raised and it will not be the last, especially once Democratic partisans are released from attacking each other and can focus their fire on Sen. McCain.
Assuming the liberty that I so often have on this august site to counsel Sen. McCain, allow me to offer that though the issue has to be addressed, it should not be done so by direct address for the simple reason that though words matter, conduct and action matter even more.
Running for re-election in 1984, President Reagan answered questions about his advanced maturity by delivering a memorable quip that completely disarmed the issue and sealed his victory. For his part, Sen. McCain is a funny guy but is no Reagan, and so will not be able to diffuse the issue in the same effortless manner. Instead, it will be dispelled or confirmed through the day to day strain of the campaign. If Sen. McCain is active on the trail and energetically engages with the voters in the town hall meetings that have typified his campaign-style to date, age will not be an issue. If, on the other hand, voters tune into the evening news each night and see a listless nominee reading a tired stump speech through the bags under his eyes, doubts will inevitably develop, and justifiably so.
Sure it is nice to point to your ninety-year old mother as, to borrow Mrs. Goodman’s humorous term, a “genetic ambassador” when questions are presented regarding your age, but the best way to invalidate concerns that you are too much of an old man to vigorously execute the office of President of the United States is to not act like one.
Indeed, the issue of whether voters will believe Sen. McCain is too old will not turn on whether his critics say he is or whether he says he isn’t, but on the degree of energy and vitality he exhibits in traveling across the country asking Americans for their votes. If Sen. McCain continues to be the same candidate he has been so far, accusations of senility will ring hollow and die by absence of merit.
What’s more, age might not even turn out to be Sen. McCain’s cross to bear but that of his likely opponent, whose youth and inexperience compared to Sen. McCain’s years of impressive service to country could be politically emasculating in an election when perilous times place a priority on experience and preparedness.
The age hurdle is and will be cleared if Sen. McCain demonstrates that, far from being the target of a hooded reaper that some would portray him to be, he is the one statesmen in this election experienced and prepared to lead the nation through a quadrennium that will be both decidedly consequential and tumultuous.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Polls Gone Crazy
There has been a spate of polls released in the last few days by many different organizations and on many different things—whether they be national or state polls. And each one of them seems to reveal a completely different race. For example, Gallup has Sen. Clinton defeating Sen. McCain in a potential match-up 51% to 46% whereas Rasmussen has Sen. McCain defeating Sen. Clinton 51% to 41%. This wide disparity holds in polling of a Sen. McCain-Obama race as well.
The only lesson that can be drawn from this is that polls aren’t to be trusted at the moment. In both possible general election races we can only hold that it is essentially a tie; just take a look at the RealClearPolitics averages of each match-up. Until the Democratic nominee is determined and the dynamics of the campaign reveal themselves there is only so much value in general election polling at the moment, and until then all candidates seem to be on pretty equal footing (which is pretty good for Sen. McCain).
What can be determined from recent data is that Sen. Obama is coming down to earth, nay falling down to earth. Examine some state polling numbers released today. Rezko, ‘3a.m.’, and Rev. Wright have all inflicted body blows on Sen. Obama and there is irrefutable evidence that at this point his campaign is swooning.
The only lesson that can be drawn from this is that polls aren’t to be trusted at the moment. In both possible general election races we can only hold that it is essentially a tie; just take a look at the RealClearPolitics averages of each match-up. Until the Democratic nominee is determined and the dynamics of the campaign reveal themselves there is only so much value in general election polling at the moment, and until then all candidates seem to be on pretty equal footing (which is pretty good for Sen. McCain).
What can be determined from recent data is that Sen. Obama is coming down to earth, nay falling down to earth. Examine some state polling numbers released today. Rezko, ‘3a.m.’, and Rev. Wright have all inflicted body blows on Sen. Obama and there is irrefutable evidence that at this point his campaign is swooning.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Economy
It is beyond argument that the hyperventilating economy is a drag on Republicans—and in consequence Sen. McCain—this election year. Further deterioration will only exacerbate that fact and Sen. McCain and his campaign need to remain on top of the issue.
It is entirely appropriate and beneficial that he is abroad right now, demonstrating his command of the foreign policy sphere and his qualifications to be commander-in-chief; but if it is not already than the economy is likely to be the preeminent issue of concern in the campaign, and disproportionate emphasis on foreign affairs runs the risk of neglecting that which is of the most concern to the voter. This cannot happen. Peter cannot be robbed to pay Paul.
In the coming weeks Sen. McCain needs to be out in front talking about the economy, acknowledging its perilous state in the present and demonstrating that he understands the concommitant apprehension among Americans. He needs to identify the general objectives his administration will pursue economically and some specific policies and programs tailored to curing what ails the economy at this time. His economic advisors and surrogates need to be running the cable news, radio, and Sunday morning gauntlet doing the same.
Most importantly, Sen. McCain needs to get above the Democrats on this issue. Their two presidential candidates propose immense government solutions to the economy, which they promise will be the solution to its deficiencies. But there is only so much oxygen in the atmosphere and the more government consumes the less there is for the economy and the market to grow and prosper. Sen. McCain’s requiem is to demonstrate this. Persuade Americans that there are real problems with this economy but that the Democrats’ prescriptions will not rectify but only aggravate them. The Democrats’ economic program aims to empower the federal government, his seeks to empower the American people.
A specific example of how I would have Sen. McCain approach the economy and his Democratic opponent regards trade. In I think every single speech I have heard Sen. Obama deliver on the campaign trail he has promised to end tax loopholes for American companies that ship jobs overseas. But why, Sen. McCain should ask, do these companies outsource? Because labor costs are cheaper in those foreign countries. Closing tax loopholes and otherwise raising taxes and attacking American business will not stop outsourcing but only create greater incentive for them to practice it even more.
Sen. McCain can be aggressive on the tax issue from another angle as well. As Jeffrey Bell wrote in his excellent article in last week’s Weekly Standard, he “can note that Democrats insisted [that all the Bush tax cuts] expire, a fact that is now causing uncertainty among workers and investors as stiff tax increases loom ever closer.” He must look at the Democratic nominee and “demand that he [or she] explain how leaving the prospect of stiff tax increases in place will help today’s economy and stock market.”
Sen. McCain and down-ticket Republicans cannot alter the fact that the economy will be a burden on them this year, so long as Americans feel burdened by it themselves at least. All he and they can do is tackle the issue aggressively and forthrightly, acknowledging the economy as it is, promoting reasonable policies and approaches, and convincing the voters that Democrats don’t have remedies, only prescriptions for further aggravation. Do this successfully and we just might win an election.
It is entirely appropriate and beneficial that he is abroad right now, demonstrating his command of the foreign policy sphere and his qualifications to be commander-in-chief; but if it is not already than the economy is likely to be the preeminent issue of concern in the campaign, and disproportionate emphasis on foreign affairs runs the risk of neglecting that which is of the most concern to the voter. This cannot happen. Peter cannot be robbed to pay Paul.
In the coming weeks Sen. McCain needs to be out in front talking about the economy, acknowledging its perilous state in the present and demonstrating that he understands the concommitant apprehension among Americans. He needs to identify the general objectives his administration will pursue economically and some specific policies and programs tailored to curing what ails the economy at this time. His economic advisors and surrogates need to be running the cable news, radio, and Sunday morning gauntlet doing the same.
Most importantly, Sen. McCain needs to get above the Democrats on this issue. Their two presidential candidates propose immense government solutions to the economy, which they promise will be the solution to its deficiencies. But there is only so much oxygen in the atmosphere and the more government consumes the less there is for the economy and the market to grow and prosper. Sen. McCain’s requiem is to demonstrate this. Persuade Americans that there are real problems with this economy but that the Democrats’ prescriptions will not rectify but only aggravate them. The Democrats’ economic program aims to empower the federal government, his seeks to empower the American people.
A specific example of how I would have Sen. McCain approach the economy and his Democratic opponent regards trade. In I think every single speech I have heard Sen. Obama deliver on the campaign trail he has promised to end tax loopholes for American companies that ship jobs overseas. But why, Sen. McCain should ask, do these companies outsource? Because labor costs are cheaper in those foreign countries. Closing tax loopholes and otherwise raising taxes and attacking American business will not stop outsourcing but only create greater incentive for them to practice it even more.
Sen. McCain can be aggressive on the tax issue from another angle as well. As Jeffrey Bell wrote in his excellent article in last week’s Weekly Standard, he “can note that Democrats insisted [that all the Bush tax cuts] expire, a fact that is now causing uncertainty among workers and investors as stiff tax increases loom ever closer.” He must look at the Democratic nominee and “demand that he [or she] explain how leaving the prospect of stiff tax increases in place will help today’s economy and stock market.”
Sen. McCain and down-ticket Republicans cannot alter the fact that the economy will be a burden on them this year, so long as Americans feel burdened by it themselves at least. All he and they can do is tackle the issue aggressively and forthrightly, acknowledging the economy as it is, promoting reasonable policies and approaches, and convincing the voters that Democrats don’t have remedies, only prescriptions for further aggravation. Do this successfully and we just might win an election.
Monday, March 17, 2008
On the Obama-Wright Fiasco
I do not know exactly what to make of the recent Obama-Rev. Wright controversy. Sen. Obama condemned the remarks at issue this past Friday in much the same language and tone that I would, but his explanation that the controversial statements “were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation” strikes me as strikingly insufficient and unsatisfying. As has been demonstrated in recent examinations into the Rev.’s past, these comments and views have not been isolated nor uncharacteristic of their author, but indeed coincide with years of statements and general opinion to that effect.
How is it then possible that in the twenty years Sen. Obama has been a parishioner of Rev. Wright that he was not aware of any of these comments or views of American society and history? As Michael Crowley writes, “Wright’s oft-iterated political world view, which apparently includes the belief that the US created AIDS to keep the Third World in poverty, should be quite apparent to anyone who knows him as well as Obama does.”
And if Sen. Obama was aware of this, as it seems he must have been, why did he still attend the Reverend’s church if those views were so revolting to Sen. Obama’s own? Moreover, why would he have planned to have Rev. Wright introduce him at his presidential candidacy announcement?
These are legitimate questions for voters to have, all the more so because, as Dean Barnett points out, “Obama doesn’t have any real record on ‘values, judgment and experience’ as a public figure.” It is accordingly difficult to judge and determine what relationship and symbiosis Rev. Wright’s views have to Sen. Obama’s because we do not have a sufficient understanding of and experience with Sen. Obama through which to contextualize this.
At this point I have a hard time believing that Sen. Obama’s views closely coincide with Rev. Wright’s, but it is galling how one could have the close personal relationship that Sen. Obama has had with Rev. Wright when the comments and opinions we have heard from both are so fundamentally irreconcilable with each other. It just runs so diametrically counter to the admirable post-racial stance he has taken for most of this campaign.
In the end, it is probably as William Kristol writes,
How is it then possible that in the twenty years Sen. Obama has been a parishioner of Rev. Wright that he was not aware of any of these comments or views of American society and history? As Michael Crowley writes, “Wright’s oft-iterated political world view, which apparently includes the belief that the US created AIDS to keep the Third World in poverty, should be quite apparent to anyone who knows him as well as Obama does.”
And if Sen. Obama was aware of this, as it seems he must have been, why did he still attend the Reverend’s church if those views were so revolting to Sen. Obama’s own? Moreover, why would he have planned to have Rev. Wright introduce him at his presidential candidacy announcement?
These are legitimate questions for voters to have, all the more so because, as Dean Barnett points out, “Obama doesn’t have any real record on ‘values, judgment and experience’ as a public figure.” It is accordingly difficult to judge and determine what relationship and symbiosis Rev. Wright’s views have to Sen. Obama’s because we do not have a sufficient understanding of and experience with Sen. Obama through which to contextualize this.
At this point I have a hard time believing that Sen. Obama’s views closely coincide with Rev. Wright’s, but it is galling how one could have the close personal relationship that Sen. Obama has had with Rev. Wright when the comments and opinions we have heard from both are so fundamentally irreconcilable with each other. It just runs so diametrically counter to the admirable post-racial stance he has taken for most of this campaign.
In the end, it is probably as William Kristol writes,
Obama seems to have seen, early in his career, the utility of joining a prominent church that would help him establish political roots in the community in which he lives. Now he sees the utility of distancing himself from that church. Obama’s behavior in dealing with Wright is consistent with that of a politician who often voted “present” in the Illinois State Legislature for the sake of his future political viability.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Sen. McCain & Lady Fortune
Pollster Scott Rasmussen posits and addresses the question of whether Sen. McCain’s heretofore success in the presidential campaign has been based on luck and good fortune. Whether you believe that it has been or has not, this is a worthy question to consider.
In answering it myself, I would like to at first be clear that, more than anything else, Sen. McCain’s nomination victory is due to his strengths as a candidate and his tenacity and perseverance on the trail. With that said, it seems irrefutable that he has indeed been the beneficiary of a significant degree of good fortune, as I think any successful politician must be to some extent or another.
Take Iraq. Sen. McCain "owned" the surge and staked his candidacy on American success there at a time when nearly everyone else—Democrat and Republican alike—was creating all manner of distance and distinction between themselves and our involvement there. Yet in the nearly fourteen months that the surge has been implemented and executed it has become an obvious success, and though much of the credit for this belongs to Sen. McCain and his statesmanship and political courage in advocacy and defense of it, the tide of events in Iraq is and always has been outside of the control of one individual. Had it not been for the American resurgence there, I doubt we would have seen the simultaneous resurgence of Sen. McCain.
The fractured Republican field also served to Sen. McCain’s advantage. The portion of the conservative base which stood in opposition to him never coalesced around an alternative. In consequence, he was left an opening through which he was able to surge and capture the nomination in an ultimately quick and convincing manner.
In this same vain, Mayor Giuliani absolutely vanished from the campaign once it began to intensify in the month or so prior to Iowa and New Hampshire, leaving no one to credibly challenge Sen. McCain for the national security and moderate Republican/Independent primary vote, such as there was.
Each of these developments, for the most part out of his control, amounted to a perfect storm of good fortune by which Sen. McCain leaped from the political graveyard to the Republican nomination in a span of three months.
His good fortune does not seem to have dissipated either. Senators Clinton and Obama are deadlocked in the race for their party’s nomination, and to create distance between each other they are criticizing the multitudinous flaws of both to a degree that Sen. McCain could only hope to match. Whether this fatally cripples the eventual nominee and erases the inherent advantages they would and should enjoy will be determined in November. But that fortune could sweep Sen. McCain not just to the nomination (for which he was the most qualified) but to the White House as well (for which he is the most qualified) is entirely conceivable.
In answering it myself, I would like to at first be clear that, more than anything else, Sen. McCain’s nomination victory is due to his strengths as a candidate and his tenacity and perseverance on the trail. With that said, it seems irrefutable that he has indeed been the beneficiary of a significant degree of good fortune, as I think any successful politician must be to some extent or another.
Take Iraq. Sen. McCain "owned" the surge and staked his candidacy on American success there at a time when nearly everyone else—Democrat and Republican alike—was creating all manner of distance and distinction between themselves and our involvement there. Yet in the nearly fourteen months that the surge has been implemented and executed it has become an obvious success, and though much of the credit for this belongs to Sen. McCain and his statesmanship and political courage in advocacy and defense of it, the tide of events in Iraq is and always has been outside of the control of one individual. Had it not been for the American resurgence there, I doubt we would have seen the simultaneous resurgence of Sen. McCain.
The fractured Republican field also served to Sen. McCain’s advantage. The portion of the conservative base which stood in opposition to him never coalesced around an alternative. In consequence, he was left an opening through which he was able to surge and capture the nomination in an ultimately quick and convincing manner.
In this same vain, Mayor Giuliani absolutely vanished from the campaign once it began to intensify in the month or so prior to Iowa and New Hampshire, leaving no one to credibly challenge Sen. McCain for the national security and moderate Republican/Independent primary vote, such as there was.
Each of these developments, for the most part out of his control, amounted to a perfect storm of good fortune by which Sen. McCain leaped from the political graveyard to the Republican nomination in a span of three months.
His good fortune does not seem to have dissipated either. Senators Clinton and Obama are deadlocked in the race for their party’s nomination, and to create distance between each other they are criticizing the multitudinous flaws of both to a degree that Sen. McCain could only hope to match. Whether this fatally cripples the eventual nominee and erases the inherent advantages they would and should enjoy will be determined in November. But that fortune could sweep Sen. McCain not just to the nomination (for which he was the most qualified) but to the White House as well (for which he is the most qualified) is entirely conceivable.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Race & Sen. Obama's Success
Joe Klein makes more than a few suspect claims (superficial, unsupportable claims really) in his post yesterday on Time’s "Swampland" blog.1 But I would agree to an extent with his main assertion, that Sen. Obama has been successful because of his talent, not his race.
I would actually recalibrate that statement just a bit. Sen. Obama has come a long way by virtue of his talent—as Mr. Klein correctly points out, he is "the best public speaker the Democratic Party has produced since John F. Kennedy"—, but the extent of his success (at this moment, favorite to be the Democratic nominee for President) has been determined by his race to a large degree.
As Ramesh Ponnuru has documented, there have been camps within the Democratic Party for forty years now; the traditional Democrats (the most notable representatives including Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and now Hillary Clinton) and what we may call the "new" Democrats (George McGovern, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, etc.). The former has usually been more materially concerned— focusing on entitlements, welfare, and other government programs—while the latter, being more affluent on balance, has focused on the "ethereal," like change, hope, and a new politics.
Heretofore "new" Democrats have not been very successful, with George McGovern losing in one of the largest landslides in American history in ‘72 and both Hart and Bradley failing to capture their party’s nomination in ‘84 and ‘00 respectively. What has made the difference with Sen. Obama though, as Mr. Ponnuru writes, is race. "Obama’s blackness expands the new party’s coalition in two ways. It brings in his fellow black Americans [who had previously favored traditional Democrats]. It also heightens his appeal to the party’s natural constituents. Well-off liberal white voters are delighted to have the opportunity to vote for a nice black man."2
Mr. Klein is only half-right then. Sen. Obama has gotten to the top by virtue of his talent—which is impressive in many ways—but what has put him over the top, and has distinguished him from previous failed Democrats of the same cloth, is his race.
1. Klein, Joe (2008, March 13). [Weblog] On Ferraro. Swampland. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/on_ferraro.html
2. Ponnuru, R. (2008, March 10). The Warrior and the Priest. National Review, LX(4), 17-18.
I would actually recalibrate that statement just a bit. Sen. Obama has come a long way by virtue of his talent—as Mr. Klein correctly points out, he is "the best public speaker the Democratic Party has produced since John F. Kennedy"—, but the extent of his success (at this moment, favorite to be the Democratic nominee for President) has been determined by his race to a large degree.
As Ramesh Ponnuru has documented, there have been camps within the Democratic Party for forty years now; the traditional Democrats (the most notable representatives including Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and now Hillary Clinton) and what we may call the "new" Democrats (George McGovern, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, etc.). The former has usually been more materially concerned— focusing on entitlements, welfare, and other government programs—while the latter, being more affluent on balance, has focused on the "ethereal," like change, hope, and a new politics.
Heretofore "new" Democrats have not been very successful, with George McGovern losing in one of the largest landslides in American history in ‘72 and both Hart and Bradley failing to capture their party’s nomination in ‘84 and ‘00 respectively. What has made the difference with Sen. Obama though, as Mr. Ponnuru writes, is race. "Obama’s blackness expands the new party’s coalition in two ways. It brings in his fellow black Americans [who had previously favored traditional Democrats]. It also heightens his appeal to the party’s natural constituents. Well-off liberal white voters are delighted to have the opportunity to vote for a nice black man."2
Mr. Klein is only half-right then. Sen. Obama has gotten to the top by virtue of his talent—which is impressive in many ways—but what has put him over the top, and has distinguished him from previous failed Democrats of the same cloth, is his race.
1. Klein, Joe (2008, March 13). [Weblog] On Ferraro. Swampland. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/on_ferraro.html
2. Ponnuru, R. (2008, March 10). The Warrior and the Priest. National Review, LX(4), 17-18.
Sen. McCain & FISA
Despite substantial bipartisan support, House Democrats have continued to drag their feet on legislation, already approved by the Senate, which will extend the American intelligence services’ ability to electronically monitor terrorist communications abroad. House Democrats passed an alternative version of that legislation today, but it was an alternative which inaugurates new privacy rights for foreign enemies of the United States and which preserves liability for telecommunication companies which have assisted the United States in that monitoring in good faith.1 The upshot is that now no legislation is in place for the President to sign and will not be for two more weeks at the earliest, which is when Congress will return from recess.
Until legislation is passed, American intelligence will be compelled to follow probable-cause standards in gathering foreign intelligence, standards which are inappropriate for that sphere. As Andrew McCarthy has written, "Having probable cause means you already know someone is dangerous...In gathering foreign intelligence, it is necessary to case a wide net of suspicion in order to detect which regimes, organizations, and operatives might be a threat to Americans."2
The House Democrats’ recalcitrance is unacceptable, compromising national security to placate their left-wing base which, as Matthew Continetti points out, "is adamant that the [telecoms]...not be granted immunity from litigation for cooperating with the government on foreign surveillance of terrorists during the years when FISA did not have authority over the program."3
Sen. McCain is now for all intents and purposes the leader of our party, and his credibility on issues of national security with the American people can be utilized. I would encourage him to address this issue in public and on Capitol Hill, calling out the minority of members of Congress—including Sen. Obama—on their lack of responsibility on this legislation. He would do a great service to his country and our security interests were he to assume a leadership role here. So much of our ability to identify and understand our enemies should not be shorn away at the behest of the over-zealous fringe on our country’s left.
1. McCarthy, Andy (2008, March 14). [Weblog] FISA Bait & Switch. The Corner, National Review Online. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRlOWM3OGUwYzYyOGFlZjE2YWQ1NmFjMGYyNmRmYjc=
2. McCarthy, Andrew C. (2008, March 10). A Most Dangerous Game. National Review, LX(4), 22-24.
3. Continetti, Matthew (2008, March 17). The 'Don't Protect America' Democrats. The Weekly Standard, 13(26), 5-6.
Until legislation is passed, American intelligence will be compelled to follow probable-cause standards in gathering foreign intelligence, standards which are inappropriate for that sphere. As Andrew McCarthy has written, "Having probable cause means you already know someone is dangerous...In gathering foreign intelligence, it is necessary to case a wide net of suspicion in order to detect which regimes, organizations, and operatives might be a threat to Americans."2
The House Democrats’ recalcitrance is unacceptable, compromising national security to placate their left-wing base which, as Matthew Continetti points out, "is adamant that the [telecoms]...not be granted immunity from litigation for cooperating with the government on foreign surveillance of terrorists during the years when FISA did not have authority over the program."3
Sen. McCain is now for all intents and purposes the leader of our party, and his credibility on issues of national security with the American people can be utilized. I would encourage him to address this issue in public and on Capitol Hill, calling out the minority of members of Congress—including Sen. Obama—on their lack of responsibility on this legislation. He would do a great service to his country and our security interests were he to assume a leadership role here. So much of our ability to identify and understand our enemies should not be shorn away at the behest of the over-zealous fringe on our country’s left.
1. McCarthy, Andy (2008, March 14). [Weblog] FISA Bait & Switch. The Corner, National Review Online. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRlOWM3OGUwYzYyOGFlZjE2YWQ1NmFjMGYyNmRmYjc=
2. McCarthy, Andrew C. (2008, March 10). A Most Dangerous Game. National Review, LX(4), 22-24.
3. Continetti, Matthew (2008, March 17). The 'Don't Protect America' Democrats. The Weekly Standard, 13(26), 5-6.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
One Term Pledge?
In the April 2, 2007 issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in the interest of the McCain campaign that the Senator should pledge to serve only one term as President if elected. By doing this, he writes, “McCain would implicitly be placing himself on the right side of the divide between those politicians who run to be someone and those who run to do something…that ’something’ would be to see America through an especially dangerous phase of the war on terrorism and, secondly, to address the nation’s looming fiscal wreck.”
I have to agree that a one-term pledge would be beneficial. It would enhance his image and reputation as an unconventional politician, especially among independents, who have had it with Washington and the poisoned politics that have come to fester therein.
I think it would also assuage some conservatives’ concerns that Sen. McCain is trying to remake the Republican Party anew, especially if he were to pick a young and enterprising conservative who would, presumably, run in his own right in 2012.
Finally, it will define him as the statesman in this race; not a messiah or someone solely interested in his own political advancement, but one solely interested in serving his country and helping it resolve some of its most pressing challenges and issues. He commonly says on the stump and in his victory speeches that he owes everything to his country, is proud to have served it for decades, and asks only to serve it a little while longer. Pledging to serve only one term as President would only confirm and enhance that sentiment, and I think it would be rewarded by the American voter.
I have to agree that a one-term pledge would be beneficial. It would enhance his image and reputation as an unconventional politician, especially among independents, who have had it with Washington and the poisoned politics that have come to fester therein.
I think it would also assuage some conservatives’ concerns that Sen. McCain is trying to remake the Republican Party anew, especially if he were to pick a young and enterprising conservative who would, presumably, run in his own right in 2012.
Finally, it will define him as the statesman in this race; not a messiah or someone solely interested in his own political advancement, but one solely interested in serving his country and helping it resolve some of its most pressing challenges and issues. He commonly says on the stump and in his victory speeches that he owes everything to his country, is proud to have served it for decades, and asks only to serve it a little while longer. Pledging to serve only one term as President would only confirm and enhance that sentiment, and I think it would be rewarded by the American voter.
Friday, March 07, 2008
An Immigration Compromise
Among the paramount sources of consternation between conservatives and Sen. McCain has been his positions on immigration reform. Whether it is the case or not, a significant segment of the Right have regarded these as amnesty, and no one will be able to convince them otherwise.
Instead, the senator should offer a compromise, one which recognizes and respects the disagreements and disparate points of emphasis between conservatives and himself. Specifically, I would advise Sen. McCain to adopt a tripartite approach to immigration reform that he would implement as President.
First and foremost, he ought to commit to enforcing immigration law as it currently exists in the United States Code. Too much of that law has gone unenforced for years and a simple rectification of that dereliction would go a significant distance in diminishing the problem that our open southern border presents.
Second, devise and implement other useful policies that would further enhance the administration’s effort to provide border security.
Third and finally, commit to considering and devising humane and benevolent policies to address the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the country only after—with emphasis on only after—the border has been secured and the flow of illegal immigration has stopped.
Writing in opposition to the comprehensive immigration reform Sen. McCain cosponsored with Sen. Kennedy last Spring, the editors of National Review asserted that until "we see [border] enforcement taking place—and see the government standing up to the interests that will squeal when it does—we should not contemplate providing an amnesty." This is the basis for compromise. If Sen. McCain adopts an approach similar to the one I propose here, he will commit to securing the border as President before acting on any other approach, with conservative’s end of the bargain being that they will cooperate in good faith with him if and when this is achieved and it comes time to address the undocumented immigrants currently within the country but outside of our laws.
Sen. McCain has already signaled he is open to this, declaring on the stump that he has received the message from the voters that the border must be secured as a precondition to anything else. I hope conservatives will be willing to meet him halfway.
Instead, the senator should offer a compromise, one which recognizes and respects the disagreements and disparate points of emphasis between conservatives and himself. Specifically, I would advise Sen. McCain to adopt a tripartite approach to immigration reform that he would implement as President.
First and foremost, he ought to commit to enforcing immigration law as it currently exists in the United States Code. Too much of that law has gone unenforced for years and a simple rectification of that dereliction would go a significant distance in diminishing the problem that our open southern border presents.
Second, devise and implement other useful policies that would further enhance the administration’s effort to provide border security.
Third and finally, commit to considering and devising humane and benevolent policies to address the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the country only after—with emphasis on only after—the border has been secured and the flow of illegal immigration has stopped.
Writing in opposition to the comprehensive immigration reform Sen. McCain cosponsored with Sen. Kennedy last Spring, the editors of National Review asserted that until "we see [border] enforcement taking place—and see the government standing up to the interests that will squeal when it does—we should not contemplate providing an amnesty." This is the basis for compromise. If Sen. McCain adopts an approach similar to the one I propose here, he will commit to securing the border as President before acting on any other approach, with conservative’s end of the bargain being that they will cooperate in good faith with him if and when this is achieved and it comes time to address the undocumented immigrants currently within the country but outside of our laws.
Sen. McCain has already signaled he is open to this, declaring on the stump that he has received the message from the voters that the border must be secured as a precondition to anything else. I hope conservatives will be willing to meet him halfway.
Letter to the Editor, PLU MAST, for the PLU GOP
In the February 22, 2008 issue of the Mast, Ethan Jennings conveyed in his column a neat, black and white understanding of the situation in Pakistan that does not conform with the messy realities that exist on the ground in that country. He wrote that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has "enjoyed the backing of the Bush administration in yet another case of America supporting a morally corrupt dictatorship in favor of convenience, something it has been doing since at least the beginning of the Cold War."
This is snide misrepresentation. The choice on who to support in Pakistan is not between the corrupt dictator Musharraf and the pluralistic, accountable, and democratic party of the late Benazir Bhutto, as Mr. Jennings insinuates.
That Musharraf has been corrupt we do not deny nor seek to controvert. What we do feel compelled to point out is that Bhutto was no better than Musharraf. Her party, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), was founded by her grandfather, and has monarchically remained in the family’s control ever since. Also, as the observer of Pakistani affairs Jonathan Foreman points out, in her two stints as Pakistan’s prime minister her government was "marked by spectacular corruption and incompetence."*
In this light it is manifestly unfair for Mr. Jennings to assert that the Administration has sided with a despot instead of democrats "out of convenience." There have been no good options in Pakistan and are none now. We have supported and cooperated with Musharraf not because he is the best choice, but because he is the only viable one at this point. We’ve worked to get his country’s assistance in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda elements that use Pakistan as sanctuary, which has been crucial, all the while pressing him to hold free and fair elections on schedule (which, as Mr. Jennings points out, we have been successful in) and to cooperate with the PPP and other non-Islamist political parties in Pakistan.
Mr. Jennings closes his piece by advising the Administration to support the new Pakistani government—which it will do—and "send a message to the Muslim world that the U.S. is not only interested in its own wealth and power, but in the welfare of others, and the furtherance of democracy as the most important of American interests."
However, President Bush has been sending this message since 9/11. We are militarily supporting two democratic governments in the Middle East at this moment and continue to press governments in the Middle East to reform their governments and societies towards democracy. As the President said in his second inaugural, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." He has not always taken the proper or adequate course in advancing representative government in the Middle East in our view, but that the furtherance of democracy is one of the most important American interests and goals of his presidency is clear.
*Foreman, Jonathan (2008, January 28). The Real Bhutto. National Review, LX(1), 24-28.
This is snide misrepresentation. The choice on who to support in Pakistan is not between the corrupt dictator Musharraf and the pluralistic, accountable, and democratic party of the late Benazir Bhutto, as Mr. Jennings insinuates.
That Musharraf has been corrupt we do not deny nor seek to controvert. What we do feel compelled to point out is that Bhutto was no better than Musharraf. Her party, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), was founded by her grandfather, and has monarchically remained in the family’s control ever since. Also, as the observer of Pakistani affairs Jonathan Foreman points out, in her two stints as Pakistan’s prime minister her government was "marked by spectacular corruption and incompetence."*
In this light it is manifestly unfair for Mr. Jennings to assert that the Administration has sided with a despot instead of democrats "out of convenience." There have been no good options in Pakistan and are none now. We have supported and cooperated with Musharraf not because he is the best choice, but because he is the only viable one at this point. We’ve worked to get his country’s assistance in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda elements that use Pakistan as sanctuary, which has been crucial, all the while pressing him to hold free and fair elections on schedule (which, as Mr. Jennings points out, we have been successful in) and to cooperate with the PPP and other non-Islamist political parties in Pakistan.
Mr. Jennings closes his piece by advising the Administration to support the new Pakistani government—which it will do—and "send a message to the Muslim world that the U.S. is not only interested in its own wealth and power, but in the welfare of others, and the furtherance of democracy as the most important of American interests."
However, President Bush has been sending this message since 9/11. We are militarily supporting two democratic governments in the Middle East at this moment and continue to press governments in the Middle East to reform their governments and societies towards democracy. As the President said in his second inaugural, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." He has not always taken the proper or adequate course in advancing representative government in the Middle East in our view, but that the furtherance of democracy is one of the most important American interests and goals of his presidency is clear.
*Foreman, Jonathan (2008, January 28). The Real Bhutto. National Review, LX(1), 24-28.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
A Tale of Two Revolutions
John Adams once wrote that "It is much easier to pull down a government...than to build [one] up."1 Trite though it may be, this little aphorism reflects a great deal upon the differences in kind between the American and French Revolutions. Each occurred within years of each other, but ultimately culminated with entirely different results; the American resulting in the establishment of a free society and the French ending with the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Inherent to the ultimate success of the American Revolution was its markedly un-Revolutionary character. Prior to the outbreak of war with Great Britain in the Spring of 1775, the thirteen American colonies had decades of experience in self-government, having operated within a largely defacto state of sovereign self-government for decades. Each had a colonial legislature, popularly elected to varying degrees, which collected the revenues and controlled the purse. This was undergirded by a generally vibrant civil society, with colonists often literate in the British Constitution, the English Common Law, and their rights as Britons under both.
After the conclusion of the French and Indian War, the British Parliament had begun to levy increasingly burdensome taxes and duties on the colonies, which they understandably resented. The slogan "No taxation without representation" reflected the popular belief that only the colonial legislatures popularly elected by the colonists, and not the British Parliament, had the authority to levy taxes and duties on them. When the colonies finally declared independence in 1776 they did so not to tear apart one regime and replace it with another ex nihilio, but rather to preserve the system of self-government they had held and cherished for years. They were severing their bonds with Great Britain to preserve the free, self-governing society that had existed a priori, in other words.
In fact, the formal governments that were formally established during and after the war—the state constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately the U.S. Constitution—were similar in nature to the antebellum colonial governments. As Charles Austin Beard wrote in his book American Government and Politics, the state and national governments of the nascent republic were "based as far as possible on the experience of the colonies and the states. The very names applied to the Senate, House of Representatives, and President were taken from the institutions of some of the states, while many clauses of the Constitution...were taken almost verbatim from state constitutions."2
The American Revolution resulted in a free society then not because it created one out of scratch, but because it preserved one through the war and independence and simultaneously built systems of government at the state and national level based upon the experiences and models of their previous colonial governments.
The same does not hold for the French Revolution. What began as a popular demand for representative government and the end of absolute monarchy rapidly degenerated into a tumultuous force which uprooted and destroyed the central institutions that had governed France for centuries—most notably the monarchy and the church establishment. The ancien regime was swept away in its entirety. Whereas the revolutionary Americans had preserved the general structure of their traditional English and colonial governments, reforming and adapting the new constitutional governments where appropriate, the French began de novo, divorcing themselves entirely from the traditions and experiences of their history.
In doing this they condemned themselves to failure. Reflecting upon the Revolution from across the English Channel, Edmund Burke wrote that a people "will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors...the idea of inheritance furnishes a sure principle of conservation and a sure principle of transmission, without at all excluding a principle of improvement. It leaves acquisition free, but it secures what it acquires."3
Untethered from the pillars of their history and tradition, the Revolution that was premised on notions of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity (Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité) morphed into a Reign of Terror which resulted in the deaths of thousands of French men and women.
Further, by eradicating so many of the foundational vestiges of the French social structure as they had existed at that time, an open void and state of anarchy and chaos was created which left France vulnerable to a strong man placed to swoop in and assert himself. This is indeed what happened with the absolute dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte, which culminated a revolution that had begun as a movement to replace absolute monarchy. The Revolution failed.
1. Letter from John Adams to James Warren (Jan. 9, 1787), in Adams Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, as quoted in McCullough, David (2001). John Adams. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, at 473-4.
2. Charles Austin Beard, American Politics and Government 2 (J.S. Cushing Co.-Berwick Smith Co. 1910).
3. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), reprinted in Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche, at 552 (David Wootton ed, Hacket Publishing Company, Inc. 1996).
Inherent to the ultimate success of the American Revolution was its markedly un-Revolutionary character. Prior to the outbreak of war with Great Britain in the Spring of 1775, the thirteen American colonies had decades of experience in self-government, having operated within a largely defacto state of sovereign self-government for decades. Each had a colonial legislature, popularly elected to varying degrees, which collected the revenues and controlled the purse. This was undergirded by a generally vibrant civil society, with colonists often literate in the British Constitution, the English Common Law, and their rights as Britons under both.
After the conclusion of the French and Indian War, the British Parliament had begun to levy increasingly burdensome taxes and duties on the colonies, which they understandably resented. The slogan "No taxation without representation" reflected the popular belief that only the colonial legislatures popularly elected by the colonists, and not the British Parliament, had the authority to levy taxes and duties on them. When the colonies finally declared independence in 1776 they did so not to tear apart one regime and replace it with another ex nihilio, but rather to preserve the system of self-government they had held and cherished for years. They were severing their bonds with Great Britain to preserve the free, self-governing society that had existed a priori, in other words.
In fact, the formal governments that were formally established during and after the war—the state constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately the U.S. Constitution—were similar in nature to the antebellum colonial governments. As Charles Austin Beard wrote in his book American Government and Politics, the state and national governments of the nascent republic were "based as far as possible on the experience of the colonies and the states. The very names applied to the Senate, House of Representatives, and President were taken from the institutions of some of the states, while many clauses of the Constitution...were taken almost verbatim from state constitutions."2
The American Revolution resulted in a free society then not because it created one out of scratch, but because it preserved one through the war and independence and simultaneously built systems of government at the state and national level based upon the experiences and models of their previous colonial governments.
The same does not hold for the French Revolution. What began as a popular demand for representative government and the end of absolute monarchy rapidly degenerated into a tumultuous force which uprooted and destroyed the central institutions that had governed France for centuries—most notably the monarchy and the church establishment. The ancien regime was swept away in its entirety. Whereas the revolutionary Americans had preserved the general structure of their traditional English and colonial governments, reforming and adapting the new constitutional governments where appropriate, the French began de novo, divorcing themselves entirely from the traditions and experiences of their history.
In doing this they condemned themselves to failure. Reflecting upon the Revolution from across the English Channel, Edmund Burke wrote that a people "will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors...the idea of inheritance furnishes a sure principle of conservation and a sure principle of transmission, without at all excluding a principle of improvement. It leaves acquisition free, but it secures what it acquires."3
Untethered from the pillars of their history and tradition, the Revolution that was premised on notions of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity (Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité) morphed into a Reign of Terror which resulted in the deaths of thousands of French men and women.
Further, by eradicating so many of the foundational vestiges of the French social structure as they had existed at that time, an open void and state of anarchy and chaos was created which left France vulnerable to a strong man placed to swoop in and assert himself. This is indeed what happened with the absolute dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte, which culminated a revolution that had begun as a movement to replace absolute monarchy. The Revolution failed.
1. Letter from John Adams to James Warren (Jan. 9, 1787), in Adams Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, as quoted in McCullough, David (2001). John Adams. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, at 473-4.
2. Charles Austin Beard, American Politics and Government 2 (J.S. Cushing Co.-Berwick Smith Co. 1910).
3. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), reprinted in Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche, at 552 (David Wootton ed, Hacket Publishing Company, Inc. 1996).
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Sen. Obama & The Press
It has long been clear to anyone who cared to pay any real attention that Sen. Obama had been skating through the campaign, and the only way that is possible is with the compliance and cooperation of the national press corps, who have fawned and swooned at the senator’s feet since his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Incorrigible in their support and adulation, they have largely refused to pass a critical eye towards him and take a look beneath the uplifting veneer the campaign has constructed around itself and its candidate.
This dereliction does a double disservice to the American public. One, it provides a view and understanding of Sen. Obama that is of his own construction. As he has defined himself, he is a trans-partisan agent of change who will revolutionize American politics, provide universal health care to every American, bring our men and women home from Iraq without consequence, and resurrect America’s standing among the international community—among other lofty promises—all by the sheer force of his optimism, enlightenment, and charm.
This has been taken at face value by the fourth estate, without any intervening examination as to whether this self-crafted mystique is reconcilable with his actual real-life record. A basic cursory examination of such would reveal that his talk of trans-partisanship and unity is betrayed by an inveterate, party-line liberalism. National Journal ranked him as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, and he has assiduously avoided offending any of the Democratic Party’s constituent special interests in his three plus years in the Senate.
Second, not having had to deal with any semblance of media scrutiny he has gone untested and unchallenged, not providing the electorate with any opportunity to see how a man who would be our nation’s commander-in-chief responds to adversity. After all, if he is the one to raise his right hand on January 20th of next year his presidency will not be all rainbows, lollipops, and unicorns, regardless of what the implication of his messianic campaign has been. We live in a time of war and in a dangerous world, and there will be difficulties and crises that confront the next president, unexpected and unprepared for, and we simply cannot afford to wait until after Sen. Obama is President to witness how responds to and manages these.
That the national press has failed to act in any manner whatsoever to prevent this from occurring is gross malfeasance. Their purpose is to be our agent, examining and scrutinizing what our leaders in government present to us to divine its accuracy and legitimacy. They have not, and it would be to the American voter’s unyielding benefit if they began to, lest we elect a myth to our highest office.
This dereliction does a double disservice to the American public. One, it provides a view and understanding of Sen. Obama that is of his own construction. As he has defined himself, he is a trans-partisan agent of change who will revolutionize American politics, provide universal health care to every American, bring our men and women home from Iraq without consequence, and resurrect America’s standing among the international community—among other lofty promises—all by the sheer force of his optimism, enlightenment, and charm.
This has been taken at face value by the fourth estate, without any intervening examination as to whether this self-crafted mystique is reconcilable with his actual real-life record. A basic cursory examination of such would reveal that his talk of trans-partisanship and unity is betrayed by an inveterate, party-line liberalism. National Journal ranked him as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, and he has assiduously avoided offending any of the Democratic Party’s constituent special interests in his three plus years in the Senate.
Second, not having had to deal with any semblance of media scrutiny he has gone untested and unchallenged, not providing the electorate with any opportunity to see how a man who would be our nation’s commander-in-chief responds to adversity. After all, if he is the one to raise his right hand on January 20th of next year his presidency will not be all rainbows, lollipops, and unicorns, regardless of what the implication of his messianic campaign has been. We live in a time of war and in a dangerous world, and there will be difficulties and crises that confront the next president, unexpected and unprepared for, and we simply cannot afford to wait until after Sen. Obama is President to witness how responds to and manages these.
That the national press has failed to act in any manner whatsoever to prevent this from occurring is gross malfeasance. Their purpose is to be our agent, examining and scrutinizing what our leaders in government present to us to divine its accuracy and legitimacy. They have not, and it would be to the American voter’s unyielding benefit if they began to, lest we elect a myth to our highest office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)