Some Honeymoon

The stimulus debate in Congress has placed President Obama in a difficult position. With large majorities in both Houses he and Democrats can essentially do anything they want, which in the first major effort of his Presidency is actually panning out to be a negative. Carte Blanche has given Democrats on the Hill all the latitude they need to succumb to their worst instincts, using the country's economic emergency as an opportunity to spend on all manner of their pet causes and special interest constituencies under the guise of "stimulus." As Peggy Noonan writes, Democrats are making themselves appear "not like people who are responding to a crisis, or even like people who are ignoring a crisis, but people who are using a crisis." The more the light of day is shed on this legislation the more terrible it looks, to the point now where just about everybody acknowledges it is a lemon, publicly or privately. Yet with such dominant partisan control of Congress it is probably going to speed down Pennsylvania Avenue to the President's desk, ripe and ready for his signature.

What is he to do? He surely knows that the bill is terrible and fails to fulfill its stated Keynesian purposes, which in turn incinerates his hope to get a bi-partisan bill that will solidify his post-partisan bona fides. Yet it's not like he can veto it or even lean too hard on party leaders privately without tearing the Democratic monolith asunder in its first few weeks; no way to celebrate what was supposed to be your honeymoon.

If and when he signs it though, without any Republican support if kept in its present form, he and Democrats will exclusively own it. They will own a bill that scarcely attempts to fulfill its nominal purpose at a great cost to the taxpayer at a time when money is scarce. Down the road voters will ask what they are getting in return for their assumption of an even greater debt burden, and they will hold the powers that be responsible for that answer.

Such conundrums are inherent to the circumstances the President finds himself in. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," and with power as absolute as it could possibly get Democrats in Congress have immediately become gluttonous. Republicans did too much of the same in previous Congresses with even less power, leaving President Bush the choice of either vetoing spending he was uncomfortable with or preserving party unity to enact higher priorities (Congressional cooperation in the execution of the War on Terror). President Obama now finds himself in the same chasm, forced to select between Option A and B, both of which are imbued with potential peril.

As I'm sure he is now realizing, the burdens of responsibility scarcely ever allow time for honeymoons.

The End of President Obama’s Transcendentalism

Jonathan Martin writes that President Obama couldn't earn a single House Republican vote for the stimulus bill this evening despite his personal visit with the caucus on the Hill yesterday. Thus does a central conceit of the President's (and of every new President's) flutter away into oblivion. He has persistently dismissed partisan disagreement as illegitimate or petty (most recently in his Inaugural) even though vibrant disagreement and debate are the symptoms of healthy democracies. In that same vain he has touted his post-partisanship and ability to bridge chasms between those who disagree. He was a transcendental figure, and would be a transcendental President.

This was a mirage. The President's meet-and-greet with House Republicans was a commendable gesture but it was just that, a gesture. Patting the heads of Republicans is not enough to get their support or basic acquiescence, especially when nothing is done to address their concerns in subsequence. The facts of the matter were the same after the meeting as they were before, and that was that the "stimulus" he was lobbying for is an opportunistic pretense through which Democrats are pushing through reckless spending for their own pet causes. There is nothing in it that any Republican – or any responsible, candid observer for that matter –can support.

President Obama cannot be blamed for trying get a little without giving anything. But neither can he realistically expect to get anything without giving something in return. That is the lesson of this evening's vote.

Of course he doesn't need any Republicans for ultimate passage, but if he wants shared responsibility for this abomination of appropriation he's going to have to make it a lot less abominable. Otherwise he won't be the transcendental figure he fashions himself as and he and Democrats will be all alone with responsibility for their actions. Such is real life. You can't be post-partisan and still be straight-partisan at the same time. Not even if you're Barack Obama.

Review: Shroud for a Nightingale

Shroud for a Nightingale P.D. James

P.D. James' typical sterling characters, plot, and finely-tuned setting are as present in this book as in her previous ones. What are especially present in Nightingale though are examples of perhaps her greatest literary talent, which is her ability to use and describe the subtle phenomena that are peppered in human existence. Take this excerpt from p. 70:

"The recently dead had their own mysterious charisma; not without reason did men talk in whispers in their presence."

On p. 143:

"This, after all, was the commonest, the most banal of personal tragedies. You loved someone. They didn't love you. Worse still, in defiance of their own best interests and to the destruction of your peace, they loved another. What would half the world's poets and novelists do without this universal tragicomedy?"

On p. 305:

"He was in that state of physical tiredness when the mind and body seem detached, the body, conditioned to reality, moving half consciously in the familiar physical world, while the liberated mind swings into uncontrolled orbit in which fantasy and fact show an equally ambiguous face."

No literary figure I've ever come across has done this as well as James. Whenever she drops one of these in her stories you know instantly the feeling or phenomenon she is describing. This only comes from a keen awareness of human nature and experience and it makes each one of her stories a pleasure to read, Shroud for a Nightingale included.

How Not to Stimulate the Economy

Lawrence Summers, President Obama's chief economic advisor, appeared on Meet the Press yesterday. Asked a question about the administration's plans for the Bush tax cuts, he all but declared that they would be repealed the minute the economy starts to make a recovery. "I don't think there's any question they have to be repealed. The country can't afford them for the long run…they can't be part of the long-run budget picture…they're not going to be with us for long…"

Dr. Summers is self-evidently a smart guy and knows a thing or two about economics, but there a couple of items wrong with these statements.

First, declarations from him and other Democrats that we can't "afford" the Bush tax cuts ring a bit hollow given all of the additional deficit spending they propose. The most immediate of these is the trillion dollar "stimulus," which is in fact not a stimulus but more like one big pork-barrel spending bill (unless you believe that spending taxpayer dollars on contraception and sod for the Jefferson Memorial isn't pork…). Beyond that there is the universal health care coverage they'd like to see enacted as well as other egregious forms of government expansion that young Americans and their children will involuntarily foot the bill for down the road.

Second, if the Obama Administration's ultimate aim is to boost confidence in the economy then promising to raise taxes at the first opportunity is counterproductive. In fact it will only shove the date of recovery further down the road as consumers and investors et al become dissuaded from investment and expenditure with the specter of looming tax hikes haunting them from straight ahead. When recovery does arrive, raising taxes will indicate that the administration has fallen into what Matthew Continetti has labeled the "stimulus trap," in which the government tries to recoup lost revenue from a recession by raising taxes; which then aggravates or creates anew another recession. Call it "double-dipping," as James Pethokoukis does.

Suffice to say, promising to raise taxes in the future is not the relief the American people need and is not the stimulus the economy requires. Given our current trajectory, it is unfortunately very likely that we're going to witness just how true this really is.

The Stimulus & the Congressional GOP

Congressional Republicans reportedly presented President Obama with several tax cuts they'd like to see included in the proposed "stimulus" package at the White House today. They should think long and hard about this. Are these cuts – if included – really a source of salvation for the bill? Do they actually countervail the fact that it will be an irresponsible creation of debt that will fail to fulfill its stated purpose, if for no other reason than because it's a stimulus in name only? (The Congressional Budget Office is reporting that less than forty percent of the funds will actually be spent anytime soon, and most of the money is simply being directed towards liberal pet causes and projects.)

The real stimulus the economy needs is federal cession, if you will. The Congress and the President ought to approve across the board, permanent tax cuts that will yield a greater portion of the economy to the private sector and give individuals, families, and businesses an increased income that they can depend on year in and year out. Only this will create the conditions required for economic growth, not further inflationary, deficit, and one-time spending. For this reason no Congressional Republican should deem it responsible to support the legislation in any form that will be acceptable to a Democratic Congress and President.

Politically, supporting the stimulus won't help improve the Republican brand either. If Democrats want to saddle future generations with more debt without accomplishing anything for that steep cost than they shouldn't be given any cover. If they want to jump off of a bridge then Republicans can't stop them, but neither do they have to join them.

The choice in this matter is easy. As the saying goes, good governance is good politics; so too is the opposite. Oppose this "stimulus."

Farewell, President Bush

The presidency of George Walker Bush was eight years in length, a quantity that hardly seems sufficient in conveying its actual span. His were two terms longer than their years, replete with one large crisis after another. No president since FDR encountered as much, and by the end all Americans were simply weary of him and the baggage.

His tenure was especially trying for his supporter, who now in the immediate aftermath is made to cope with a gamut of emotions that few other political figures could possibly induce. As a president and a man he was a figure of disparate polarities, endowed with faculties that would at different times cause one to love him and at others shake their head in confused demoralization.

The foundation of this was his feast or famine executive skills. More so than any modern President save for Reagan, he possessed in spades the "vision thing" his father had so struggled with during his presidency. This was a leader who envisioned big things, whether it was a new "ownership society" at home or a reinvigorated, democratic Middle East abroad. He refused to settle for a presidency that would simply bide its time in office or occupy some space in the history books as his predecessor had.

Following the attacks of 9/11 (the first crisis of his presidency) he decided against simply consoling a shocked, grieving nation and lobbing a few cruise missiles in retaliation, instead interpreting the acts as a de facto declaration of war, beginning what he believed to be a long, generational struggle against radical Islam. To prevail, he committed himself and the republic to the daunting task of remaking the Middle East into a land of freedom and democracy. The most complete expression of this was his second inaugural, a paean to the power of freedom and America's eternal mission to promote it.

To commence his second term he pushed hard to reform Social Security, the "third rail" of American politics and a program on the quick road to insolvency. He sought personal savings accounts which would have allowed young workers to invest their payroll tax dollars into the stock market instead of sending them to the treasury to be spent and replaced by IOUs. Few in government were politically willing to touch the issue, but President Bush persisted for months in advocacy of it nonetheless.

This effort was a symptom of another of his executive skills – incorrigible determination or, some might say, stubbornness. He would have his big vision and would push for it no matter what. Whether this was a virtue or vice depended upon the issue. With his Social Security campaign it was a vice, not giving it up until well after it was clear that it wasn't going to happen (and long after its failure had done irreparable harm to his own political strength). With Iraq it saved this country from a humiliating, strategically ruinous defeat. As the Editors of National Review pointed out, his decision to support the surge when nearly everyone else sought withdrawal demonstrated "far better judgment and character than a political establishment that largely approved the initial invasion of Iraq and then sought to abandon it to terrorists." His stubbornness on Iraq was the virtue of his presidency.

His weaknesses as an executive were often times debilitating though. His ability to construct an overall vision was a virtue, as was his courage of conviction in pursuit of them (usually), but at times he lost sight of more immediate imperatives and unfinished business. His understanding that the ultimate defeat of terror depended on the spread of democracy in the Arab world was correct, and that this first and foremost required succeeding in Iraq, the geographical and strategic center of the Middle East. Yet it took far too long for him to grasp the fact that success in Iraq depended upon securing and stabilizing the country first, an accomplishment only belatedly realized by the implementation of the surge policy of 2007.

This was part and parcel to the central failing of his presidency, which was, as Jeffrey Bell writes, a tendency to set a correct objective, pursue it successfully for a time, and then founder. On a host of issues he exhibited a pattern of "excellent initial judgment, strong will, fair to decent early execution, culminating in distraction and in an ultimate failure to finish." Such was the case with tax cuts, marriage, faith-based initiatives, etc.

Undoubtedly, this flaw was a symptom – at least partly – of his spotty record of personnel selection and his penchant, consistent with his stubbornness, to stick by poor selections for far too long. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld might have been the correct choice for a 1990's/post-Cold War military, but he certainly was not for the extended, nation-building reality of the War on Terror. In no way should he have lasted six years.

The incompetence of Michael Brown and FEMA post-Katrina was a calamity his presidency never recovered from, tainting them from then on with the label of incompetence (Alberto Gonzales at the Justice Department and others made their contributions to this as well).

Additionally, his freedom agenda was undercut by the promotion of Scowcroft protégé Condolezza Rice to State, who tacked his administration's foreign policy back to the conventional establishmentarian policy of dialogue and diplomacy for its own sake. The upshot has been a complete failure in efforts to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program and to prevent Iran from developing one of their own, or to promote democracy in Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

By the last year or so of his presidency matters had seemingly collapsed. His unpopularity was at historically high levels not seen since the Carter presidency and the only issue he seemed to direct his traditional spunk and feistiness towards was his Iraq policy, which had been under a visceral and execrable attack by the Democratic Congress since '07. With the last significant measure of his presidency he lamely released TARP funds to boost the Detroit automakers, saving them for a few months from the death they were unwilling to save themselves from permanently.

After all of this his faithful supporter was left disheartened and confused. He had always admired his vision, moral clarity, and moral courage but ultimately became frustrated with his poorly chosen cast of subordinates and excessive farsightedness, all of which left far too many of the ventures he and the President shared unaccomplished. He had charged ahead enthusiastically in his re-election fight of '04 only to discover somewhere in the second term that the President wasn't always there next to him, but instead had fallen quite a bit behind.

Now at the end the President's supporter is left to deal with a conflicting miasma of emotions in evaluating what he witnessed the previous eight years. There were many failures and about-faces to brood about: Democratic-style spending, immigration, North Korea, Iran, Harriet Miers, Katrina, etc. But so too did the President have his share of accomplishments in spheres foreign and domestic., many of which have been obscured by the controversies of a political atmosphere imbued with bitter partisanship (which President Bush's Texas bluntness and self-assurance helped to create).

He cut taxes at a time in 2001 when the economy was in a post-boom slowdown and did it again in 2003, both rounds of which helped lessen the length and severity of the recession he inherited from his predecessor. He appointed Samuel Alito as an associate justice of the Supreme Court and John Roberts as chief justice, "whose sterling qualifications appear to include a deep commitment to respect the broad play the Constitution gives to the operations of representative government," as Ed Whelan has written. His committed opposition to federal funding of stem cell research, rooted in a belief in the sanctity of life and the concurrent need to develop other means of research, was vindicated by the announcement in 2007 that scientists have developed a way to turn regular human skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. Yuval Levin is right in stating that "he acted to demonstrate that science and ethics are not mutually exclusive, but could be championed together in a way that demonstrated our commitment to the value of every human life."

In the sphere of foreign affairs he withdrew the United States from the Kyoto protocol, which excluded the world's largest polluters from its obligations and would have been a sullen drag on the economy. He helped foster stronger relationships with East Asian democracies – specifically Japan – and helped to grow a bilateral relationship with India which could be instrumental in managing China's growth going into the future. Despite the incessant talk of America's broken image in the world, pro-American regimes are also in power in Germany, France, Italy, England, and other Eastern European countries. What's more, we have good relationships with Columbia (a fact imperiled by our inability to pass the Columbian Free Trade Agreement), Mexico, and Brazil. And for some reason the lines are as long as ever to get into this country, despite the fact that anti-Americanism is supposed to be higher than ever.

His record of strengthening presidential power and the federal government's capacity to combat the war on terror is mixed, but generally positive as well. Eleven times he vetoed congressional measures which would have weakened the power of the President, and he persisted in the practice of issuing signing statements – despite inane criticism – on the principle that the President is the chief executive officer and not "the legislature's errand boy," as Matthew J. Franck has written. His administration dismantled the al Qaeda network and detained and interrogated many of its operatives, setting up procedures for their continued detention and surveillance. So too did it devise means to monitor terrorists communications in an era of cell phones, e-mail, etc. He put in place an infrastructure to combat the War on Terror which had not existed prior to 9/11 and the country is safer as a result. His only folly was doing all of this unilaterally. He should have struck when the iron was hot, securing congressional implementation of these programs on a permanent basis. That way there wouldn't have been the confusion and controversy that enveloped him at the end of his administration. Further, codification would have established a permanent structure for future administrations to effectively wage the global war.

The results cannot be questioned though, and in what is without doubt the seminal achievement of his presidency there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. That is something no one would have predicted following that terrible day and it was due entirely to the decisive actions he implemented from that point forward. In fulfilling the President's main task of serving as commander-in-chief and defending the United States he consistently did right and did well, persisting regardless of the flak he got from critics, too many of whom were small men. As Congressman Peter Hoekstra writes, "President Bush demonstrated the character and patriotism that define a true American leader despite unrelenting partisan criticism over his decisions."

It was indeed a long eight years, and there were many mistakes the President made. But when the smoke and dust are gone history will remember that George Walker Bush did pretty well. He, like so many Americans, responded to the attacks of 9/11 with grace and determination, recognizing the monumental task before him. It will remember that he ordered the overthrow of two cruel regimes, leaving fifty-million Muslims safer and freer as a result. It will remember that when the chips were down in Iraq; when he could have given in to pressure and despair, he didn't fold but doubled his bet and America snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. It will remember that he lucidly did the hard things needed to be done and kept the American people safe. And finally, it will remember that despite his failings and weaknesses as a leader he never misrepresented who he was, he never lost his class or grace (even when so many of his detractors never demonstrated any themselves), and he never gave up.

And if history doesn't remember him for this, his supporter will.

I will.

Farewell and thank you, President Bush.

The President’s Guantanamo Pickle

After a campaign spent lambasting the Bush Administration for operations at Guantanamo Bay the new President has declared that the facility will be closed within the year. Unfortunately, more problems are created by this than by actually keeping it open.

For one, what is the administration going to do with the combatants being detained there? You know, the people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists who have committed their lives to incinerating the United States? They obviously can't release them without multiplying the folly of Gov. Dukakis' infamous furlough program by powers of a hundred. They could send them back to their countries of origin but that would seem a little hypocritical given the fact that President Obama waxed indignantly at his predecessor for such rendition (a policy the Clinton Administration practiced as well, incidentally).

Neither of these are an option obviously, so the detainees will have to be moved to a new facility, which entails even more problems. Trying to relocate them to domestic military installations, as has been suggested, will be met with fierce resistance from the communities they're located in, and understandably so. As the Wall Street Journal points out today, to have these men on American soil without the security the isolation of Guantanamo provides invites terrorist attack.

There's also that nagging little reality that all of this is farcically symbolic, as the Obama Administration will simply have to create another Guantanamo under another name to fulfill the very same purpose Guantanamo has fulfilled to date. The aforementioned problems seem a steep price to pay for such empty gestures, so wouldn't it be more pragmatic to simply reform the operations within Guantanamo that the President has objected too instead of enduring all of this heartburn? Sure he might look a little duplicitous after having promised to close the installment during the campaign, but there's been a number of positions and sentiments he held as a naïve candidate that he's since had to change when confronted with reality as President-Elect and President. This is just another one of those instances.

But as has become a pattern with this issue, there are even problems with that. He wishes to replace the system President Bush and the Congress set up in 2006 with a hypothetical process that will accord with the "basic principles of [the] Anglo-American legal system." Of course that is predicated upon the fallacy that the war we're in is a province for law-enforcement, which it most certainly is not. The detainees of Guantanamo aren't criminals but illegal combatants engaged in a type of war against the United States that we have not seen before and which, prior to 9/11, our institutions weren't constituted to respond to. Quoting the Journal again, "many of the Guantanamo prisoners haven't committed crimes per se but are dedicated American enemies and too dangerous to let go. Other cases involve evidence that is insufficient for trial but still sufficient to determine that release is an unacceptable security risk."

Unfortunately for the standing of President Obama's and the Left's previous sanctimony on the matter any responsible system that recognizes this fact while providing a fair legal process to deal with these terrorists is going to have to look like a lot like that which had been set up previously by Constitution shredder-in-chief George Bush. The President should just cut his losses, admit as much, and avoid making one of his first mistakes in office.

Lincoln & Obama

I was consumed in a convulsive shock when it was suggested a few weeks ago that President-Elect Obama is not a contemporary Lincoln. But now that I have gotten over it and my heart-rate has normalized I have been given pause to reflect. After due deliberation, I must accede that this may be the case. Maybe.

All sarcasm aside, of course the President-Elect does not drink at the same bar as Lincoln. One of their similarities – both took hold of the public spotlight in acclaimed speeches – illustrates this. Obama's keynote at the 2004 DNC and Lincoln's Cooper Union address reflect their disparate perspectives, temperaments, and depth of thought.

Then-St. Sen. Obama's keynote was short and platitudinous, uplifting but innocuous. He mostly avoided the specific issues relevant to the election and bemoaned the abstract problem of division and bitterness. He warned against unnamed, nefarious operators "who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of 'anything goes.'" He declared that "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there's the United States of America." The election wasn't about Iraq, the War on Terror, tax cuts, jobs, immigration or what have you, but whether "we participate in a politics of cynicism or…in a politics of hope."

Since complaining about partisanship is (ironically) about the only thing Americans can join hands in on a bi-partisan basis, the speech was an exercise in snatching the lowest-hanging fruit. Obama was able to endear himself to the base with uplifting vapor delivered in a sonorous voice without offending anyone else, which can always be accomplished when you never really say anything. Memorable was the presentation, not the content, such as there was.

Lincoln's at Cooper Union was a substantive and extended exposition on the Constitution's meaning on the dominant issue before his country – the expansion of slavery into the western territories. He prefaced his discourse with the perfectly scholarly question, "Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?" From that he entered a long examination discussing every instance in which the Congress had dealt with slavery in the territories. He cited the actions of the thirty-nine signers of the Constitution, twenty-three of which voted on the issue in the Confederacy and/or Constitutional Congresses. He concluded

that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one - a clear majority of the whole - certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding.

Quite distinct from Obama's tack, Lincoln did not speak of anonymous forces but addressed his critics by name – Southern Democrats – and exhorted them to take him and Republicans up in a reasoned debate. He mentioned each of their accusations and answered them; that Republicans were revolutionary, that they were enflaming the slavery issue, and that they promoted insurrection among the slaves. Then he used the historical evidence from the first half of his speech to make the case that it was his antagonists who were trying to bend the Constitution to their will, not the Republicans. Their "purpose…plainly stated, is that [they] will destroy the Government, unless [they are] allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as [they] please, on all points in dispute between [them] and us. [They] will rule or ruin in all events."

Lincoln certainly didn't waste time urging Northerners and Southerners – Republicans and Democrats – to put aside their differences and unify. Far from it:

Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man.

Instead he exhorted his audience to "have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."

At Cooper Union Lincoln used a deep understanding of history to answer a very specific question, demonstrating a profound degree of thought and awareness. He wasn't picking fruit from his knees but took on an issue that divided the country until it bled.

In the four years that elapsed between his keynote and election the President-Elect hasn't done the same. It is quite clear that he still does not know his own mind, either flipping positions or being conspicuously vague on the FISA bill, meeting with dictators, plans for Iraq, tax cuts, etc.

In the years before the White House Lincoln dedicated himself to considering and debating the issues of his age. President-Elect Obama used the same period to advance himself by focusing on himself, running a campaign based on personality, not issues or ideas.

Barack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln.