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.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
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. 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.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 14, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
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.
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 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.”
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)