To the President-Elect

Mr. President-Elect:

I am rapidly approaching the point at which I will become responsible for my own living and that of a family of my own, and at that threshold I will inherit the future I looked forward to and prepared for as a child and adolescent. For this I am quite excited and hopeful, but so too am I fearful. I am fearful because my future and the future of my generation is in jeopardy, and with all respect and humility, some of the policies you proposed and supported as a candidate will only increase that peril.

Our country is in a very dangerous moment economically, and as you prepare to assume the presidency in a few months you are no doubt aware of this. How you and the rest of our leaders act in this time (in all levels of government) will determine how America meets and answers these challenges, whether we tackle and solve them or whether we are consumed by them.

In regards to young Americans such as myself, the job market we are soon to enter will be severely harmed should you and the Congress agree to raise taxes on Americans anywhere on the income scale. Taking capital out of the economy at a time when it is already suffering from a lack thereof will reduce business and investment even further, leaving us with fewer jobs and opportunities and higher costs of living. Diminishing free trade with the global community will only aggravate this. As new entrants into the workforce, such a troubled state of affairs would burden young Americans immensely, highly reducing our chances for success and prosperity as we begin to build lives of our own.

Specifically, on the campaign trail you often derided loopholes in the tax code that gave breaks to large corporations such as oil companies. I think you and I can both agree that all taxpaying Americans should pay their fair share under our tax code, but I fervently urge you to refrain from raising taxes on corporations and businesses because, very simply, they do not pay them. An increased tax burden will cause business either to leave our shores for cheaper locales or they will pass their increased costs down to average Americans through job layoffs and/or higher costs for their goods and services. The little people and not big business will, for all intents and purposes, pay for the increases.

Our future is also threatened by the leviathan of debt accrued from years of extravagant spending. This constitutes a crippling obligation incurred by current and past generations that will have to be paid by ours. After decades of short-sighted and mindless appropriation it is time the government put its financial house in order.

The source of much of this debt are entitlement programs that are lavishly expensive and will soon lapse into insolvency if allowed to continue on their current path. If this were to occur Americans would face the unfathomable choice of massive tax increases and/or cuts in benefits. Either choice or a combination of both would be ruinous, and so federal entitlements are in dire need of comprehensive reform. However your programmatic proposals would do quite the opposite, adding more unaffordable entitlements on top of the ones we already cannot afford. This will only hasten the day we face the painful choices mentioned above and increase the severity of the pain on their arrival.

Mr. president-elect, I sincerely commend you for your historic victory and I wish you the very best as the next president of the country you and I love. Your success will be mine and every American’s success, so I will hope and pray for your good fortune as our republic’s chief executive.

But with this said the fact remains that there are many points in your agenda that I cannot in good conscience support, and I regretfully believe that their enactment would have a number of adverse effects on our economy and on our future. I fervently urge you to reconsider them and adopt measures that will grow our economy, reduce our debt, and reform entitlements for the 21st Century. Doing so will strengthen and secure the future for myself and for all Americans.

With the Sincerest Best Wishes,
Geoff Smock

Sec. of State Clinton?

Reports are that President-Elect Obama has offered Sen. Clinton the important post of secretary of state in his new administration. The punditry’s initial response to this is very positive, touting it as an act of political brilliance that will remove a potential rival out of the Senate and (possibly) out of the running for the 2012 Democratic nomination. This is one possibility, but another is that it could be a terrible mistake that will plague his presidency as long as she holds the position (assuming the reports are true).

It’s an incredibly open secret that the relationship between the two has been frigid, and the fact is and always shall remain that the Clintons have their own agenda. Period. We know the Clintonian penchant for vindictiveness and self-interest, so there is a very concrete reason to believe it possible that somewhere in the next four years we will be in receipt of leaks about disagreement and infighting between the President and his chief diplomat, if and when they occur. This specter might even be a probability if the Obama presidency goes through any real period of turbulence, specifically in the realm of foreign affairs. (Remember, it was the vice president-elect himself who predicted that his boss would be tested quickly once in office and that it wouldn’t be, to paraphrase, evident right away that his response would be the correct one.) I essentially agree with Peggy Noonan:

But the downside is equally obvious: To invite in the Clintons—and it's always the Clintons, never a Clinton—is to invite in, to summon, drama that will never end. Ever. This would seem to be at odds with the atmospherics of Obamaland. "Loose cannon," "vetting process," "financial entanglements," questions about which high-flying oligarch gave how much to Bill's presidential library, and what the implications of the gift are, including potential conflict of interest. More colorfully, and nostalgically: people screaming through the halls, being hired and fired, attacking the press, leaking, then too tightly controlling information, then leaking, and speaking in the special patois of the Clinton staff, with the famous dialogue evocative of David Mamet as rewritten by Joe Pesci.

If President-Elect Obama has made this offer to Sen. Clinton and she accepts, he could be removing a potential rival from causing him trouble outside of his administration...or he could be planting a cancer in the very center of his administration. I think the latter scenario is almost as likely as the former, but we shall see.

Sen. Obama's Iraq Pretzel

The Obama Campaign announced today that their candidate will be delivering a “major” address on Iraq tomorrow in Washington. This comes on the heels of Sen. Obama’s op-ed in the New York Times on Iraq today, or more appropriately, on his new and improved Iraq Plan 2.0.

In this piece he conspicuously neglects a few little pieces of truth which are a bit inconvenient to him and his claims of heightened judgment. He opens:

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

It is true that he has long called for a retreat – euphemistically labeled a “phased redeployment” – from Iraq, but that is not something he ought to go around pounding his chest over, for it demonstrates his poor judgment since – at least – January ‘07. That was the month when President Bush announced his surge of forces, a decision which – for the record – Sen McCain had been calling for since American forces set foot on Iraqi sand. Then, as now, Sen. Obama went on the record and boldly made the following black and white argument:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal…. I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he’s wrong.

To his ultimate chagrin however, events (or what Machiavelli called fortuna) would not stand by Sen. Obama. The surge was and has been an unqualified success. That he did not have the judgment to see that this was possible and that he failed to either recognize or acknowledge the surge’s dramatic effect subsequently is something he would like us all to forget, and is something he neglects entirely in his piece. Specifically, in touting his long-held plan of “phased redeployment” he does not mention the policy – which he opposed and consistently preached would fail – that has made it even remotely possible for us to leave Iraq without it being an unmitigated disaster in every conceivable way to do so.

He will never admit it, but as Peter Wehner writes, “It is because President Bush endorsed a counterinsurgency plan which Senator Obama fiercely opposed that we are in a position to both withdraw additional combat troops and prevail in Iraq.” Nor will he admit that it was because Sen. McCain took such a personal and momentous role in seeing that Congress supported – or at least did not thwart – the successful implementation of that surge that Sen. Obama can claim the recalibrated position on Iraq he does today.

Sen. Obama continues in his NYT opinion that “I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.”

Even if we accept that going into Iraq initially distracted us from our fight against al-Qaeda, that still does not absolve the fact that Sen. Obama recklessly called for American retreat from Iraq after it became the central front in the war on terror. In other words, it may not have been so originally, but the fact is indisputable that Iraq is now the central front – as al Qaeda itself has said – and has been since the end of initial combat there.

Sen. Obama also declares that as president he will “give the military a new mission: ending this war.”

Of course, ending the war has been the goal of everyone on every side of this issue since it was an issue, the disagreement being over the prudent and most effective way of ending the war, not actually whether to end it.

Sen. Obama determined that we ought to get out yesterday, consequences be damned. He sought nothing but ending the war for that sake alone, either neglecting to consider the adverse ramifications that would come as certainly as gravity or callously disregarding them.

Sen. McCain took the opposite tact. He determined that anything less than ending the war in victory would entail costs far more than this country could bear. So he doubled the bet and lobbied for increased force levels which then secured the country and put a strong foot up the collective ass of al Qaeda. As a result, the United States is now courting victory and it is possible for Sen. Obama to advance the one half of his plan that never would have been made possible by the other.

*****

At this point Sen. Obama’s pretzel is complete. After all these months and even years of tearing Sen. McCain to shreds over his judgment on Iraq, he has slowly walked over and taken a position right next to him, secretly adopting the Republican’s positions while still criticizing him every bit as vociferously as before. He has begun to admit – or his surrogates have – that circumstances might render his plans inoperable and has even pledged to consult with commanders on the ground before making any definitive and ill-advised decisions. Ultimately, his “phased redeployment” – now that victory in Iraq is all but achieved – probably isn’t that much different from the process of redeployment currently in operation.

Essentially, Sen. Obama is now the beneficiary of Sen. McCain’s judgement and statesmanship. He scored his political points assaulting Sen. McCain on Iraq and can now enjoy the fruits of those very same policies as a candidate in the general.

Accordingly, I would submit that Sen. Obama ought to thank Sen. McCain, at least when no one is looking. If it weren’t for him he might have had to actually answer for the consequences of his proposals, or would at least have to spend time finding some other way to blame Sen. McCain for the mess in Iraq that in reality his own policies prescripted.

Don’t worry, Sen. Obama; words need not be spoken. On behalf of Sen. McCain and all those who opposed your reckless positions – you’re welcome. Enjoy the pretzel.

Preserve the Electoral College

The Electoral College has come under increasing siege in recent years, to the point now that there is an effort – touched upon in these pages a few days ago by Scott Lehigh – to undermine it through the national popular vote interstate agreement. The Washington State Senate has already passed a version of this accord once and it will undoubtedly come into consideration once again when the legislative session begins early next year. Washingtonians as well as all Americans should be on their guard, for a national popular vote will fail to yield the benefits its proponents promise.

In describing the Electoral College as "that most antiquated of arrangements," Mr. Lehigh blithely ignores the real benefits it confers upon our democracy. It compels candidates to adopt moderate approaches and to build truly national coalitions of voters, thereby discouraging political extremism from either the right or left.

Further, trading the Electoral College for a national popular vote would bring about a smaller – not broader – national campaign. Only required to get the most popular votes, the major candidates would need only to retreat to the major metropolitan areas and/or into their biggest bases of support to engage in dueling contests of running up the score. Without the allure of electoral votes, they would have no incentive to visit and address the concerns and interests of the middling to minimally populated states that do receive attention now, such as Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, New Hampshire and, yes, Washington.

The Electoral College also serves as a bulwark against corruption and electoral fraud. In a close presidential election decided by popular vote, fraud in one major metropolitan area could be enough to swing the election one way or another. That this is a real possibility only increases the incentive – and thus the likelihood – for someone to engage in such an effort in the right circumstances.

Under the current system though, voter fraud can be isolated to one state without it necessarily swinging the entire election. The threat of corruption is still real, but the Electoral College goes a long way in reducing it.

Mr. Lehigh also misses the point when he bemoans the fact that so many states are currently ignored to the benefit of a select few "battleground states." As Tara Ross has pointed out, the reason these states don’t receive the attention more closely-contested ones do is because they "already feel that one of the two presidential candidates represents their interests fairly well."

Ultimately, even though there is nothing technically illegal or unconstitutional about the national popular vote effort, it is a (borrowing Mr. Lehigh’s term) "clever" short-cut in changing the Constitution without actually going through the process of amending it and winning the national debate doing so would require. In other words, it has the same drawbacks as a national popular vote, which is reason enough for us to preserve a system that has always given us the benefit of truly national and moderate presidential elections and presidents.

Simply put, the Electoral College is good for American democracy and we should keep it.

Davis v. FEC

Follow and support the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform (McCain-Feingold) too much and you might begin to think we live in some strange vortex where the Constitution and its First Amendment do not really mean what they say. Disabusing this notion if and where it exists (in this case at least), the Court held in Davis v. FEC that §§319(a) and (b) violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Alito wrote that, "the unprecedented step of imposing different contribution and coordinated party expenditure limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment" and the "argument that a candidate’s speech may be restricted in order to ‘level electoral opportunities’ has ominous implications because it would permit Congress to arrogate the voters’ authority to evaluate the strengths of candidates competing for office."

Justice Alito and the Court are correct and their conclusion is the only one reconcilable with the text of the First Amendment, which mandates that "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech." The language is pretty explicit, and it certainly does not say (as it would have to for this provision to be Constitutionally permissible) that "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, except when Congress determines that doing so will help level the playing field between competing candidates for Congress."

Hoping to preserve its prerogative to regulate political speech, the government argued that the provision is justified "because it ameliorates the deleterious effects that result from the tight limits that federal election law places on individual campaign contributions and coordinated party expenditures." However that is neither here nor there. The First Amendment says without exception that Congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech period, irrespective of the putative salutary effects and benefits of doing so. As Justice Alito pointed out, by penalizing an individual’s unfettered exercise of his right to free speech the government therebyn abridges it.

Noble intentions do not justify violating the text of the First Amendment. The Constitution does in fact actually mean what it says.

'Change' Defined

Those who have wondered what it was in specific that Sen. Obama meant in his oft-delivered promises of "change" should now have an answer. The "change" Sen. Obama promises and stands for is the prerogative to change his mind, memberships, mentors, commitments, etc. whenever it is expedient and convenient for him to do so. Previous manifestations of this include his relationship with Rev. Wright, his family’s membership at Trinity United, and his back-tracking on his previous promise to sit down with America’s enemies without condition, to name a few.

There is another case in point today. After promising to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" Sen. Obama announced that he will forego public financing–with nary an attempt to work out an agreement with Sen. McCain—in the upcoming campaign. His only justification for his blatant duplicity is a lame argument that "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs." That is rich coming from a man who refuses to break one step with liberal special interests and distorts his own pious refusal to accept money from lobbyists.

We’ve tread on this ground before. Is Barack Obama really a new kind of politician? Hardly. He is simply a typical politician with a conspicuous chasm between word and deed, between Barack Obama the man and Barack Obama the myth. Ironically the person most determined to prove this is Sen. Obama himself.

Stick to the Code, Sen. McCain

Republicans in the branches of Congress and throughout the Washington establishment are hiking enthusiasts, we can only conclude. How can we not? In the three and a half years that have elapsed since the election of 2004 we have demonstrated an incorrigible determination to delve deeper and deeper into the dark recesses of the political wilderness. We were punished for this avant garde tendency in ‘06, decisively losing our governing majorities in Congress that we so uselessly squandered. A lesson was to be gleaned from this punishment, a lesson which has apparently fallen upon inattentive ears.

The establishment GOP for too long has been far too tolerant of corruption within its midst. Residing within government simply to gorge upon its trough is antithetical to every principle which defines the party, yet too few within the party’s apparatus are willing to undertake the dirty work of preserving the integrity of those principles and of the party in general. Thus we march deeper into the wilderness.

Pork-barrel spending—the nectar and sustenance, nay the seed of corruption—also flies antagonistic to our party’s principles, yet in the years since we have controlled Congress until this day it has grown exponentially among the caucuses in the House and Senate, even after our ass-whipping in November ‘06. A recent proposition by House Minority Leader John Boehner that House Republicans adhere to a moratorium on pork was easily defeated. What is more, some of the caucuses’ most disreputable appropriators maintain their positions of leadership within the caucus and on committees. Thus we march deeper into the wilderness.

Though many good, credible conservative solutions there be, Republicans in Congress still provide no compelling agenda to address the country’s problems and the concerns of the American people, such as health care, energy, the economy, Iran, North Korea, etc. Democrats have their own (big government, terrible) ideas, we appear to have none. Thus we march deeper into the wilderness.

The upshot is that Republicans face losses this year every bit as significant as those in ‘06, losses which will strengthen the Democrats’ grasp on the levers of power in Washington and their ability to inflict real harm through their disastrous prescriptions. It does not help Republicans that their own malfeasances have coincided with Democrats’ long-awaited realization that to win Congressional seats within generally conservative America you have to run candidates who are themselves conservative, specifically on social issues, immigration, spending, etc. Witness Travis Childers’ recent victory in a House special election in heretofore Republican Mississippi.

Without reformation, complacent Republicans will only watch their seats dwindle further and further year after year. This leaves Sen. McCain in the position of having to enforce the Pirate’s Code: Whoever falls behind, is left behind. He has to press ahead with his reform agenda, touching upon those issues of concern to the American voter that Congressional Republicans at least appear to be ignoring. Be prepared to go it alone; if Republicans in Congress want to follow great, they’ll be doing all of us a favor. If they do not, press forward regardless. I wouldn’t wait for them to return from their furlough into the wilderness.

It's Been Decided For Awhile, Folks

The political commentariat is now operating under the assumption that Sen. Obama has at long last clinched the Democratic nomination by his landslide victory in the North Carolina primary and his near upset of Sen. Clinton in Indiana. This is wrong from the standpoint that Sen. Obama was effectively assured of the nomination following his string of victories following Super Tuesday, long before this past Tuesday. Indiana and North Carolina did not change anything except convince many of what was already, for all intents and purposes, inevitable.

Sen. Clinton intends to carry on, of course, because she is Sen. Clinton. As David Kahane writes, “She’s not going to quit because she has nowhere else to go, and nothing else to do. She lives for this, and without it, she has no life. In fact, without it, she doesn’t exist at all.” Since her husband raised his right hand in ‘93 she has been preparing for the day that she could raise hers. Until Sen. Obama’s nomination is official, she is not going to let that go.

Though it is all but inevitable at this point, it is only all but inevitable. That is how she will view the situation at least. She will look forward to large victories in the upcoming Kentucky and West Virginia primaries, hoping significant margins there will stoke further discussion of Sen. Obama’s inability to win over white, blue-collar voters and give Democratic super-delegates further pause as they size up the strength of Sen. Obama as a general election candidate. She will also continue to push for the seating of Michigan’s and Florida’s delegates at the convention (she sent a letter to Sen. Obama today laughably urging him to support that effort), arguing–not without some semblance of a point–that to deny those delegates seats would be to disenfranchise Democratic voters in those respective states and harm Democrats politically in what will be two pivotal battlegrounds in the fall.

Ultimately, these efforts will fail and Sen. Obama, warts and all, will accept the nomination in Denver this August. All that is really left to be decided is whether Sen. Clinton can and even wants to muscle herself onto the ticket and how exactly such a ticket would play in the fall. The race for the Democratic nomination is essentially decided and has been decided for sometime, but the saga and theater shall continue hence.

Sen. McCain & the Judiciary

Second only to the role of commander-in-chief, a President’s most solemn and consequential function is to appoint judges to the federal judiciary. Once appointed these jurists serve for life, kept accountable only by the substance of their own jurisprudence and the dictates of their conscience. From behind their august bench it is entirely within their power to willfully manipulate the laws and the Constitution of the United States in all manner of ways which their textual import does not bear.

If privileged to serve as our 44th President, Sens. Clinton and Obama have made it all too clear that this is exactly the type of judge they will appoint to the bench and the Supreme Court. Assuming awesome powers they do not rightfully possess, these judges would continue the federal judiciary’s steady trespass into the provinces and functions of the elected branches of the federal, state, and municipal governments that has been problematic for the past half-century. These are judges who will interpret the Constitution as entirely malleable to the dictates, caprices, and “evolving standards of decency” of themselves and their colleagues.

This is not acceptable. The province of the federal judiciary is to interpret and apply the text of the laws and Constitution of the United States in accordance with the import they carried when they were originally adopted, not to refashion them in a manner they deem appropriate, which is always inappropriate. In a regime based upon popular consent, judicial adventures into the realm of the political branches are intolerable and an absolute anathema to democracy. As President Lincoln so ably put it in his first inaugural, “the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

In his speech on the federal judiciary today Sen. McCain recognized this, pledging to

"look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist — jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power. They will be men and women of experience and wisdom, and the humility that comes with both. They will do their work with impartiality, honor, and humanity, with an alert conscience, immune to flattery and fashionable theory, and faithful in all things to the Constitution of the United States."

Let this sentiment not be once uttered in today’s speech and never again in the campaign. I would urge the senator return to it again and again, creating a clear distinction and choice for the voter between his opponent and himself. He ought to reiterate that whether you are conservative or liberal, those issues of the greatest significance to the republic must be decided the correct way through the legal and Constitutional political processes that have served us as a people throughout our history, whether you agree with the ultimate results or not. The federal judiciary has its place in our Constitutional republic, it should remain within that. This is only achieved by appointing the right type of judges to the bench, the type of judges Sen. McCain now promises to appoint as President.

Sen. Obama's New Outrage

Sen. Obama has finally found himself in the position where anything less than an open and unconditional condemnation of Reverend Jeremiah Wright is politically untenable. This is primarily because his and other’s assertions that the multiple comments of the reverend that have surfaced before the public over previous weeks were taken out of context has been belied by Rev. Wright’s reiteration and extension of those viewpoints in his various public appearances this week.

In consequence, Sen. Obama has finally asserted his outrage publicly, which of course only raises the question, why now? It would strain credulity to accept that he was never aware of Rev. Wright’s deranged views for the past twenty years he sustained a close relationship with him, so then why is it now—only now—that Sen. Obama has become outraged? Why never in the two previous decades when he was sitting in the pews listening to this bile? You and I can be forgiven if we suspect that the answer to this question is very plain: he is now running for President of the United States and his prospects of being elected as such are being jeopardized by his intimate association with Rev. Wright.

As we go forward from this, Sen. Obama’s problem will be that Americans hold this suspicion too and that, beyond this, they begin think Sen. Obama’s only real objection to Rev. Wright’s views is their political inexpedience to his campaign, not their actual content and substance. This would be fatal, and Sen. Obama must now train his focus on doing all he can to prevent this suspicion from permeating the consciousness of the American voter. Doing this is all the more pressing because he is hemorrhaging in his race against Sen. Clinton. Good luck, Senator.

Some Clarification

It would probably be helpful to infuse a little clarity where it might be lacking regarding the objections towards Sen. Obama’s recent “bitter” comments, for those who may misunderstand the substance of those objections that is. We who do object–or at least myself–do not do so to Sen. Obama’s contention that many small-town Americans are “bitter” or upset at economic hardship and suffering. Where this hardship exists, there is obviously bitterness and angst and we nor anyone else would deny this.

What is objectionable and frankly offensive is Sen. Obama’s belief that small-town Americans simply “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations” for any reason. This fully de-legitimizes those beliefs and practices and reduces them to mere childish and irrational reaction to and epiphenomena of adverse circumstances. As Rich Lowry points out, this is an irrefutable refusal to meet people on their own terms and reveals an “assumption…that only liberal attitudes are normal and well-adjusted: If only these small-town people could earn more income, get an advanced degree, and move to a major metropolitan area, then they could shed their chrysalis of social conservatism.”

That is what is objectionable.

Barack Obama, Teflon Man?

Phil Klein and Jim Geraghty considered yesterday whether Sen. Obama is Teflon Man, immune and impervious to any negative ramifications that would stand to be incurred by the politically erosive toll of controversies such as “Bittergate”, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, etc. It is an open question well worth the discourse, and I submit that we will not be in a position to answer it anytime soon, not until this perpetual contest between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama is decided that is.

Much of the available polling data tends to inform us that the aforementioned controversies have not had any substantial negative effect on Sen. Obama among Democratic primary voters. But this is only half the story, as the dynamics of a primary race—for both political parties—and a general election campaign are two beasts in complete disparity. Democratic primary voters are, speaking generally, decidedly more liberal than the great swath of voters in the general electorate. Their principles, perceptions, ideologies, and priorities are of a different form. Accordingly, they would tend not to take much offense towards Sen. Obama’s close association with Rev. Wright, an anti-American bigot, or Sen. Obama’s de-legitimization of millions of blue-collar Americans’ religious views and practices, their lifestyles, and political principles.

This might not be the case among the general electorate, of which only a minority slice is distinctly liberal. The rest is comprised of centrist Democrats (Reagan Democrats), independents, and Republicans. In consequence, what was not an issue in the Democratic primary may very well be a big issue in the general and a burdensome yoke hampering Sen. Obama’s candidacy. We will not know this until Sen. Obama actually becomes the Democratic nominee and the dynamics of a general election campaign between himself and Sen. McCain reveal themselves.

Along this train of thought, Mr. Geraghty questions whether Sen. Obama’s “bitter” comments are or possibly can be a “killer gaffe”. I doubt they can be, but I also don’t think that is the point. Demeaning millions of Americans is not a gaffe that once uttered dooms his chances, but along with Rev. Wright, Rezko, and his previous political record they can serve to create a general impression about Sen. Obama among Americans that is deleterious to his prospects in November. It might be one component piece among a general corpus which fosters a suspicion and conviction among independents and others that Sen. Obama is one who looks down upon those who are deeply or actively religious, are hawks on immigration, and/or who own and use guns.

If this becomes the case among enough voters, Sen. Obama will be at pains to win what has been thought to be a shoe-in victory for Democrats this November. As Michael Goodwin writes, “Already facing a racial barrier made worse by the incendiary comments of his pastor, the Rev. Wright, the notion that Obama is also a liberal elitist could prove fatal in swing states.” Time will tell if this becomes so, or if Sen. Obama is a man of Teflon and in time the forty-fourth President of the United States.

On Sen. Obama's "Bitter" Remarks

Sen. Obama’s recent comments regarding residents of small town Pennsylvania reveal and demonstrate a stereotype and misunderstanding of rural and heartland America that is endemic among the elite of the American left, of which Sen. Obama is himself a part. This segment has a common conception that much of blue collar and rural America is gun-toting, irrationally religious, isolationist, xenophobic, and intolerant “of people who aren’t like them” (i.e. homosexuals, blacks, you name it). This is a perception held in corners of academia, the national media, the urban intelligentsia, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and among the permanent civil service elite in Washington and within many state governments. To wit, it is no accident Sen. Obama’s comments were made before an audience in San Francisco.

Possession of this worldview is compounded, in Sen. Obama’s case at least, by condescension and unseemly paternalism. Not only are these segments of America all of the aforementioned, but they are so because it’s their emotive and rash response to economic suffering. Small town America is irrational and extreme because things haven’t gone their way, and are embittered and blame others for their misfortune.

It is to Sen. Obama and enlightened liberals to remedy this through their pure enlightenment and cosmopolitan understanding. They are the good shepherds that will lead the American flock of sheep to greener pastures through progressive governance. If you don’t believe that you’re just bitter.

Shine Coming Off

Heretofore it has been conventional wisdom in conservative circles and within the political community in general that between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton would be the weaker Democrat in the general election. This indeed may be true, and there is ample reason to believe that it is, but the events of the past month have begun to tarnish the validity of that theory.

Until recently Sen. Obama’s self-constructed and purveyed image as a transcendental candidate and beacon of hope and unity in an otherwise sordid political age had gone largely unmolested. But alas, reality has begun to set in. His claim to be an unideological and post-partisan leader was betrayed by revelations from National Journal that he is the most doctrinaire liberal in the U.S. Senate. His new politics has been accosted by, among other things, the commencement of the trial of his former fundraiser Tony Rezko. Most damaging of all, his message of unity and hope was slapped across the face with the publicity of many, shall we say, impolitic remarks by his pastor and mentor with whom he has had an intimate relationship for two decades.

The shine has begun to come off and new questions have begun to surface regarding his viability as a candidate in the fall, questions which only add to those which most national Democrats have apparently been too disinterested to ask, namely those concerning Sen. Obama’s unsettling degree of inexperience.

The upshot of all of this is that it is clear that Sen. Obama is susceptible to a political fall of a kind greater than most candidates for President. He has billed himself as a figure that is tantamount to a political messiah, a lofty standard that is, at best, extremely difficult to live up to. Any stumbles, such as the multitude we have witnessed of late, and the whole facade could come crashing down. As Yuval Levin writes, for those voters who have flocked to him so far, “learning more about Obama will not only be disconcerting, it will be disillusioning, which is far worse. Obama’s trouble is not only that people know little about him, but also that much of what they know is not true.”

Sen. Obama has not built his candidacy on anything solid, such as a record or concrete principles and prescriptions, only on pleasant platitudes and catch phrases which are nothing more than empty bottles. Should Democrats nominate him they may very well be building their entire house on top of a vaporous myth, a myth which may very well evaporate in an election cycle they have no business losing. I by no means assert this is foreordained, only that it is a very real possibility.

On Plato's Cave

With no commentary on the validity of Plato’s conception of human nature, his allegory of the cave is not a good metaphor for it. Plato uses the cave and its inhabitants to represent man’s natural state, yet nothing of or within the cave is or can be said to be remotely natural. Each of the men are prisoners, not free-dwelling residents thereof, bound in chains and artificially proscribed from moving in any manner. What they see and are subject to perceive is determined by their prison masters. All is controlled, nothing is natural or variable.

The individual who does leave the cave does not do so through his own fruition, but is chosen at random (presumably) and compelled to go towards the surface and the light of day. How then can this person, who has left the cave and seen the sun in its pure form (the representative of the good), represent that rare species of human endowed with the capacity for philosophy and the contemplative life when the only difference between him and his fellow captives is that he was compelled to ascend while the others remained bound in chains below? He is distinguished not by natural gift or superior cognitive capacity, but by fortune.

Instead of providing a compelling metaphor for his view of man, Plato unwittingly provides those with views opposite his own a compelling metaphor to describe the regime he (in his critics’ view) and the masters of totalitarian states would impose (and have imposed) on their servile peoples. To wit, those masses are confined in a state of imprisonment by the few, bound in bondage and proscribed from any sort of meaningful freedom and liberty. What they are allowed to see, know, experience, and perceive is strictly regulated and controlled by the masters at the top.

This is the formulation of the totalitarian state, and is it not the exact formulation of Plato’s cave? Therefore the image of the cave, which Plato utilizes to convey the natural state of man, can logically be said not to convey that true natural state to Plato’s critics, but only the artificial state Plato and his ilk would impose on man. Plato would have done well to have found a different metaphor.

Bush Redux?

By now each of us has heard the claim by the two Democratic candidates for President and other minions of the Democratic Party that Sen. McCain is running for a “third Bush term.” Of course this is nonsense. Sen. McCain was never one, for better or for worse, to toe the administration line and would not seek to perpetuate that line were he to become President.

The only reason his Democratic critics can allege that he is Bush redux–despite all those pesky matters of public record to the contrary–is because he, like President Bush, is determined to win in Iraq and stave off the devastating effects American defeat would incur.

But on second look, Sen. McCain and the Bush Administration have had two distinct positions on Iraq throughout the course of most of our involvement there, as David Brooks points out this morning. From nearly the moment that Saddam’s statue fell in Baghdad, Sen. McCain criticized the administration’s reconstruction strategy and advocated an infusion of American forces into Iraq to bring security to the country, the absolute requiem for a democratic process to develop. Only in January of last year did the Bush Administration abandon its own failed strategy and adopt that of Sen. McCain and other bright military minds in the country.

Sen. McCain never toed the administration’s line, and in fact it was the Bush Administration that eventually conformed itself to Sen. McCain’s line. Now Democrats would like to convince Americans that the opposite is true, seeking to penalize Sen. McCain for the fact that the Bush Administration eventually wised up and adopted his strategy.

Of course the irony in this is that it is now Democrats who support the old Bush/Rumsfeld strategy, preaching as gospel phased withdrawals of American troops with the simultaneous transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces that are not yet ready to shoulder that entire burden themselves, the recipe for–as we have seen–al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian bloodshed.

In the end, as Mr. Brooks concludes, “Anybody who thinks McCain is merely continuing the Bush agenda is not paying attention.”

The Age Issue

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.

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 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.

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,

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.