In the aftermath of Mrs. Bhutto's assassination, thoughtful Americans have begun to reconsider their presidential options in light of one, overriding truth.
It's a dangerous world.
Without setting aside the very real dangers of global climate change, we must never forget old-fashioned perils such as rogue regimes with nuclear weapons - a genuine possibility in the case of Pakistan.
Our next President must, of course, be capable of addressing such dangers - should they arise - as well as acting with wisdom and foresight to avert them. He or she must also have the greatest possible freedom of action - consistent with our institutions and values - in order to act with speed and precision when the occasion calls for it.
That's why, in my judgment, we need a President who can disengage US forces from Iraq- ending President Bush's apparently open-ended commitment to pacify and unify a country which has been irreparably fragmented.
We can't afford to remain as we are - tied down in an endless conflict which is wearing down both our soldiers and their equipment and costing us the services of our rising class of junior officers. We need to get our troops home to refit, retrain, and rest up for the next crisis.
For there will be new crises. And we can never know when.
Yet, though we must get out of Mesopotamia, we must also leave that region in a sufficiently stable condition to sustain itself with new civil or international conflicts. Withdrawing will do no good if we find ourselves having to go back in a few years hence, to deal with a "Bosnia on steroids".
I set forth these considerations with the greatest reluctance. If I had my druthers, I'd want our next President to devote his or her energies to solving health care, finding the funds to improve K-12 education, and taking a serious swing at global climate change.
But there will be no money, no political capital, and precious little presidential time for such matters if we remain tied down in Iraq. The next president will wake up each morning to a briefing on Baghdad - end each day with another. He or she will spend a considerable portion of each day dealing with a war which should never have been - but which is - and every minute spent on Iraq will be minute not spent on make America a better place in which to live.
Which leads to one inevitable conclusion:
No candidate's domestic agenda makes the slightest difference without a plan for withdrawing from Iraq, while leaving a stable situation behind. There will be no health care reform, no bold environmental policy, no educational progress - no progressive agenda at all - so long as we remain in Iraq.
Which is why I've begun thinking seriously about whether this is the year to elect a Democrat. With the possible exception of Joe Biden, no Democrat has offered anything like a realistic vision for bringing our troops home. In the case of Hillary Clinton, at least, there's no plan for ending that commitment at all.
Which leads to this question:
If no Democrat has a plan for getting us out of Iraq, aren't we better off electing a sane Republican - assuming one is nominated - and letting the GOP tidy up its own mess?
After all, the two major parties have been trading the White House back and forth since 1992. Indeed - counting Bush 41 as a third Reagan term and LBJ and Ford as continuations, respectively, of JFK and Nixon - the pattern goes back to 1952.
If the next President is a Democrat, and he or she wastes his or her term cleaning up the mess in Mesopotamia - there's a good chance the GOP wins the White House in 2012. It could be 2020 before we elect a President with the will and resources to carry out a genuinely progressive agenda.
I realize that, in our modern world, we tend to live in and think for the moment. Electing a Democrat in 2008 would be far more satisfying than electing a Republican.
But until I see a Democrat with a realistic plan for Iraq, I continue to wonder - what's the point?
Friday, December 28, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Narrowing the Field
A version of the following appeared as one of my weekly columns in the (Chester) Village News.
Thus far, I’ve named my dream candidate for president – and my nightmare. Today, I’ll briefly survey the rest of the field.
Logically, I’ll start with the Democrats. As a progressive – or, if you insist, a “liberal” – I tend to agree with Democrats more often on the issues, though not so often that I don’t wish for a third option. Given the Democrats’ reluctance to take bold positions – or nominate bold candidates – I’m increasingly inclined to regard them as bigger obstacle to progressive government than the Republicans.
I'm also concerned that electing a Democrat in 2008 would be a wasted opportunity. If the mess in Mesopotamia dominates the attention of our next Commander in Chief – and a combination of war and economic slowdown limit the funds and political capital available to make real progress on such issues as health care and the environment – we might as well elect a decent Republican, if there is one, and leave it to the GOP to clean up their war.
We can always elect a Democrat – or someone even greener and/or more progressive – in 2012.
That said, several Democrats strike me as credible candidates. Senator Joe Biden is an experienced, intelligent statesman with solid foreign policy and national security credentials. He’s also unusually insightful; Biden was years ahead of the curve in detecting Iraq’s tendency to fragment into three essentially separate states. I just wish he had the gumption to proceed to the logical conclusion – endorsing outright partition as America’s way out.
Bill Richardson – the only Hispanic candidate in the race – has a most impressive resume. A former Congressman, Cabinet member, and Ambassador to the United Nations – Richardson is now Governor of New Mexico. His diplomatic credentials – especially in negotiating with people who don’t like us – are remarkable. Richardson isn’t exactly charismatic, but if we need a President to undo the damage Mr. Bush has done to our foreign relations, he seems a solid choice.
Barack Obama strikes me as a man who will be President. But not, I hope, yet. He’s obviously highly intelligent and articulate – and his approach to international affairs reminds me of the confident pragmatism of JFK. Also – considering the two presidents to emerge from the “me generation” – his not being a Boomer is a real plus. That said, three years in the U.S. Senate isn’t much experience. Obama in 2012, maybe. Obama in 2016, sure. But in 2008?
In terms of policy positions, intellectual brilliance and overall talent, John Edwards is clearly the class of the Democratic field. He’s a marvelous communicator, and his roots go deep into the half of America too long neglected by both parties.With a friendly Congress – and quiet on the international front – John Edwards might prove another FDR. But without a workable exit strategy from Iraq – and Edwards doesn’t have one – how much could he really achieve?
On the Republican side, I confess, I’m more entertained than impressed. Ron Paul, a genuine libertarian, is a voice Americans need to hear – but not from the Oval Office. Texas oughta send him to the Senate.
Mike Huckabee has charm, and he’s obviously no dummy. But in the 21st century, can we afford to elect a President so indifferent to science that he can’t accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution?
Rudy Giuliani is an American original - a character out of some 1930's tough-guy flick. I agree with him on many domestic issues, but I’m wary of his Napoleonic ego.
Mitt Romney is intelligent, accomplished, articulate. He even looks presidential. But from his record, I can’t tell if he’s conservative, liberal – or a political android, his opinions stored on an infinitely rewritable memory chip. My gut tells me Romney is all about Romney.
He reminds me of Mark Warner.
Which brings us to John McCain, a man I’ve long admired. McCain isn’t perfect. Occasionally – as with his embrace of Jerry Falwell – his ambition leads him to do things that occasion a real frisson.
But, as David Brooks – The New York Times’ brilliant conservative columnist – recently noted, McCain is the only genuinely great figure in the race. McCain has character. He’s always thought for himself. He’s proved willing to tackle thorny issues, such as campaign finance reform. Having been tortured, he rejects the use of torture. He’s good on the environment. He also seems capable of unlimited growth.
In that sense, he reminds me of Senator John Warner, one of America's national treasures.
McCain also strikes me as the candidate best qualified to clean up the mess in Mesopotamia. An Annapolis man, McCain was an early critic of Mr. Bush’s misconduct of the war. He called for a “surge” – and took the resulting heat – long before the President.I’ve never agreed with McCain on Iraq, but I trust him. He’d use his best judgment and keep an open mind toward the war’s shifting fortunes – never clinging to a policy out of sheer stubbornness.
Yes, he’s a Republican – but if Mesopotamia remains the dominant issue confronting America through the next four years, we might just need a man of John McCain’s character, background and abilities.
Now, to be clear, I’m still hoping some Democratic candidate will enunciate a viable endgame for Mesopotamia. I don't see anything working, short of a three-way partition, withdrawing our long-term troops into an independent Kurdistan, and dealing with the consequent unpleasantness with Turkey - but maybe someone will come up with something.
However, until I see that plan, I’m leaning toward the honorable Senator from Arizona for 2008 - and working toward a genuine, progressive/green insurgency in 2012.
Thus far, I’ve named my dream candidate for president – and my nightmare. Today, I’ll briefly survey the rest of the field.
Logically, I’ll start with the Democrats. As a progressive – or, if you insist, a “liberal” – I tend to agree with Democrats more often on the issues, though not so often that I don’t wish for a third option. Given the Democrats’ reluctance to take bold positions – or nominate bold candidates – I’m increasingly inclined to regard them as bigger obstacle to progressive government than the Republicans.
I'm also concerned that electing a Democrat in 2008 would be a wasted opportunity. If the mess in Mesopotamia dominates the attention of our next Commander in Chief – and a combination of war and economic slowdown limit the funds and political capital available to make real progress on such issues as health care and the environment – we might as well elect a decent Republican, if there is one, and leave it to the GOP to clean up their war.
We can always elect a Democrat – or someone even greener and/or more progressive – in 2012.
That said, several Democrats strike me as credible candidates. Senator Joe Biden is an experienced, intelligent statesman with solid foreign policy and national security credentials. He’s also unusually insightful; Biden was years ahead of the curve in detecting Iraq’s tendency to fragment into three essentially separate states. I just wish he had the gumption to proceed to the logical conclusion – endorsing outright partition as America’s way out.
Bill Richardson – the only Hispanic candidate in the race – has a most impressive resume. A former Congressman, Cabinet member, and Ambassador to the United Nations – Richardson is now Governor of New Mexico. His diplomatic credentials – especially in negotiating with people who don’t like us – are remarkable. Richardson isn’t exactly charismatic, but if we need a President to undo the damage Mr. Bush has done to our foreign relations, he seems a solid choice.
Barack Obama strikes me as a man who will be President. But not, I hope, yet. He’s obviously highly intelligent and articulate – and his approach to international affairs reminds me of the confident pragmatism of JFK. Also – considering the two presidents to emerge from the “me generation” – his not being a Boomer is a real plus. That said, three years in the U.S. Senate isn’t much experience. Obama in 2012, maybe. Obama in 2016, sure. But in 2008?
In terms of policy positions, intellectual brilliance and overall talent, John Edwards is clearly the class of the Democratic field. He’s a marvelous communicator, and his roots go deep into the half of America too long neglected by both parties.With a friendly Congress – and quiet on the international front – John Edwards might prove another FDR. But without a workable exit strategy from Iraq – and Edwards doesn’t have one – how much could he really achieve?
On the Republican side, I confess, I’m more entertained than impressed. Ron Paul, a genuine libertarian, is a voice Americans need to hear – but not from the Oval Office. Texas oughta send him to the Senate.
Mike Huckabee has charm, and he’s obviously no dummy. But in the 21st century, can we afford to elect a President so indifferent to science that he can’t accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution?
Rudy Giuliani is an American original - a character out of some 1930's tough-guy flick. I agree with him on many domestic issues, but I’m wary of his Napoleonic ego.
Mitt Romney is intelligent, accomplished, articulate. He even looks presidential. But from his record, I can’t tell if he’s conservative, liberal – or a political android, his opinions stored on an infinitely rewritable memory chip. My gut tells me Romney is all about Romney.
He reminds me of Mark Warner.
Which brings us to John McCain, a man I’ve long admired. McCain isn’t perfect. Occasionally – as with his embrace of Jerry Falwell – his ambition leads him to do things that occasion a real frisson.
But, as David Brooks – The New York Times’ brilliant conservative columnist – recently noted, McCain is the only genuinely great figure in the race. McCain has character. He’s always thought for himself. He’s proved willing to tackle thorny issues, such as campaign finance reform. Having been tortured, he rejects the use of torture. He’s good on the environment. He also seems capable of unlimited growth.
In that sense, he reminds me of Senator John Warner, one of America's national treasures.
McCain also strikes me as the candidate best qualified to clean up the mess in Mesopotamia. An Annapolis man, McCain was an early critic of Mr. Bush’s misconduct of the war. He called for a “surge” – and took the resulting heat – long before the President.I’ve never agreed with McCain on Iraq, but I trust him. He’d use his best judgment and keep an open mind toward the war’s shifting fortunes – never clinging to a policy out of sheer stubbornness.
Yes, he’s a Republican – but if Mesopotamia remains the dominant issue confronting America through the next four years, we might just need a man of John McCain’s character, background and abilities.
Now, to be clear, I’m still hoping some Democratic candidate will enunciate a viable endgame for Mesopotamia. I don't see anything working, short of a three-way partition, withdrawing our long-term troops into an independent Kurdistan, and dealing with the consequent unpleasantness with Turkey - but maybe someone will come up with something.
However, until I see that plan, I’m leaning toward the honorable Senator from Arizona for 2008 - and working toward a genuine, progressive/green insurgency in 2012.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Not With a Gun to My Head
The following is part two of a three-parter on the choice confronting liberal and progressive citizens in 2008. The original, slightly modified, version appears in my regular column in this week's Chester Village News.
With Iowa and New Hampshire less than a month away, I still find myself scratching my head over the presidential field. So far, my main achievement has been to identify one candidate for whom I could not – under any foreseeable circumstances – cast my ballot.
Senator Hillary Clinton.
I write this at the risk of offending. The valid aspirations of generations of American women have – for many – become wrapped up in Senator Clinton’s candidacy. Woe betide the man who speaks ill of her.
But I’ll take that risk, because it’s not Senator Clinton’s gender that bothers me.
It’s her character – and her last name.
The Clintons – Bill and Hillary – seem to me to embody everything that has gone wrong with American liberalism. Simply stated, whatever principles they started with have become entirely subordinated to their unquenchable ambition. They will do whatever it takes to win high office – and having won, to hang on.
As a result, they – and their allies – have nearly completed the decades-long process of neutering the Democratic Party as an instrument of progressive government.
At least since the rise of Ronald Reagan, Democrats have been playing the political equivalent of a “prevent defense” – which, as every football fan knows, too often prevents winning.
Witness Mr. Clinton’s two terms. True, he balanced the Federal budget – an admirable achievement. But he fumbled health care reform in his first year – and never tried again. He did nothing serious about Social Security, immigration, or the environment.
Indeed, despite remarkable skills as a communicator, he never – after his first year – mounted a serious effort to rally public opinion on behalf of any major, progressive policy initiative.
As I see it, Mr. Clinton enjoyed being President more than exercising the powers of the presidency. To understand how little he used these powers, one need simply compare Mr. Clinton’s presidency with that of his successor – a man with a fraction of his intellectual and rhetorical gifts, but possessing an unshakeable will.
From my perspective, Mr. Clinton’s presidency was a holding action – a waste of eight years. And his most unforgivable failure – one in which his First Lady was fully complicit – was his refusal to resign after the Lewinsky scandal.
Had Mr. Clinton resigned, Al Gore would have become president – with two years to establish himself, shake off the taint of a scandal in which he played no part, and set a new course.
Given the closeness of the 2000 election, it’s inconceivable that a President Gore would not have defeated Governor Bush – in which case, much that has gone so badly wrong over the past seven years might have been avoided.
Yet, even after it became clear that the scandal would, at best, reduce Mr. Clinton to the lamest of ducks, the Clintons clung to office. In so doing, they failed their party – and their country.
In my view, this failure is sufficient justification for rejecting Senator Clinton’s candidacy. Still, in fairness, I’ve watched for signs that a second President Clinton might be better than the first.
I’ve seen none.
Senator Clinton supported the resolution authorizing President Bush’s invasion of Iraq – and waited until public opinion turned against the war before cautiously speaking against it. Even today, she has made clear that she expects to keep American troops in Iraq at least through her first term as President – which essentially means she would have neither the money nor the political capital to advance her domestic agenda.
Senator Clinton has supported President Bush’s escalation of tensions with Iran – an unnecessary confrontation which will likely result in serious, unnecessary blowback.
She has offered only the feeblest criticisms of the President’s violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Bill of Rights, and the constitutional separation of powers.
In short, she has sedulously avoided any expression which would limit the powers of the office she hopes to win – a disturbing portent. From her behavior, Senator Clinton strikes me as the most cold-bloodedly ambitious person to seek the Oval Office since Richard Nixon.
That said, good friends have asked the obvious question: If 2008 came down to a choice between Senator Clinton and some arch-conservative Republican, wouldn’t you have to vote for her?
Nope.
As a student of History, I like to think long-term.
True, electing Senator Clinton would deprive the GOP of the White House.
But it would also commit the US to at least another four years in Iraq. That, in turn, would mean additional hundreds of billions – funds better devoted to health care, education, alternative energy and a decaying infrastructure – being poured down a rat hole.
Electing Senator Clinton would also assure her campaign for re-election in 2012 – virtually guaranteeing that no truly progressive candidate would appear on the ballot before 2016. And, given the balance between the two parties – and the consequent trend of alternating decades in power – a Clinton victory might well mean waiting until 2020 or 2024 for another shot at a genuinely progressive presidency.
Life’s too short – and the crucial issues are too pressing.
Thus mindful, I can justify electing a Republican to deal with the mess his party made in Mesopotamia – and devoting my efforts to electing a true progressive in 2012.
And if Senator Clinton is the nominee, that choice will become far easier.
With Iowa and New Hampshire less than a month away, I still find myself scratching my head over the presidential field. So far, my main achievement has been to identify one candidate for whom I could not – under any foreseeable circumstances – cast my ballot.
Senator Hillary Clinton.
I write this at the risk of offending. The valid aspirations of generations of American women have – for many – become wrapped up in Senator Clinton’s candidacy. Woe betide the man who speaks ill of her.
But I’ll take that risk, because it’s not Senator Clinton’s gender that bothers me.
It’s her character – and her last name.
The Clintons – Bill and Hillary – seem to me to embody everything that has gone wrong with American liberalism. Simply stated, whatever principles they started with have become entirely subordinated to their unquenchable ambition. They will do whatever it takes to win high office – and having won, to hang on.
As a result, they – and their allies – have nearly completed the decades-long process of neutering the Democratic Party as an instrument of progressive government.
At least since the rise of Ronald Reagan, Democrats have been playing the political equivalent of a “prevent defense” – which, as every football fan knows, too often prevents winning.
Witness Mr. Clinton’s two terms. True, he balanced the Federal budget – an admirable achievement. But he fumbled health care reform in his first year – and never tried again. He did nothing serious about Social Security, immigration, or the environment.
Indeed, despite remarkable skills as a communicator, he never – after his first year – mounted a serious effort to rally public opinion on behalf of any major, progressive policy initiative.
As I see it, Mr. Clinton enjoyed being President more than exercising the powers of the presidency. To understand how little he used these powers, one need simply compare Mr. Clinton’s presidency with that of his successor – a man with a fraction of his intellectual and rhetorical gifts, but possessing an unshakeable will.
From my perspective, Mr. Clinton’s presidency was a holding action – a waste of eight years. And his most unforgivable failure – one in which his First Lady was fully complicit – was his refusal to resign after the Lewinsky scandal.
Had Mr. Clinton resigned, Al Gore would have become president – with two years to establish himself, shake off the taint of a scandal in which he played no part, and set a new course.
Given the closeness of the 2000 election, it’s inconceivable that a President Gore would not have defeated Governor Bush – in which case, much that has gone so badly wrong over the past seven years might have been avoided.
Yet, even after it became clear that the scandal would, at best, reduce Mr. Clinton to the lamest of ducks, the Clintons clung to office. In so doing, they failed their party – and their country.
In my view, this failure is sufficient justification for rejecting Senator Clinton’s candidacy. Still, in fairness, I’ve watched for signs that a second President Clinton might be better than the first.
I’ve seen none.
Senator Clinton supported the resolution authorizing President Bush’s invasion of Iraq – and waited until public opinion turned against the war before cautiously speaking against it. Even today, she has made clear that she expects to keep American troops in Iraq at least through her first term as President – which essentially means she would have neither the money nor the political capital to advance her domestic agenda.
Senator Clinton has supported President Bush’s escalation of tensions with Iran – an unnecessary confrontation which will likely result in serious, unnecessary blowback.
She has offered only the feeblest criticisms of the President’s violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Bill of Rights, and the constitutional separation of powers.
In short, she has sedulously avoided any expression which would limit the powers of the office she hopes to win – a disturbing portent. From her behavior, Senator Clinton strikes me as the most cold-bloodedly ambitious person to seek the Oval Office since Richard Nixon.
That said, good friends have asked the obvious question: If 2008 came down to a choice between Senator Clinton and some arch-conservative Republican, wouldn’t you have to vote for her?
Nope.
As a student of History, I like to think long-term.
True, electing Senator Clinton would deprive the GOP of the White House.
But it would also commit the US to at least another four years in Iraq. That, in turn, would mean additional hundreds of billions – funds better devoted to health care, education, alternative energy and a decaying infrastructure – being poured down a rat hole.
Electing Senator Clinton would also assure her campaign for re-election in 2012 – virtually guaranteeing that no truly progressive candidate would appear on the ballot before 2016. And, given the balance between the two parties – and the consequent trend of alternating decades in power – a Clinton victory might well mean waiting until 2020 or 2024 for another shot at a genuinely progressive presidency.
Life’s too short – and the crucial issues are too pressing.
Thus mindful, I can justify electing a Republican to deal with the mess his party made in Mesopotamia – and devoting my efforts to electing a true progressive in 2012.
And if Senator Clinton is the nominee, that choice will become far easier.
Already?
We should be thinking of Christmas.
Not entirely, of course. There are storm windows to put up, gutters to clean, fallen leaves to compost, outdoor plants to mulch. But with December ‘round the corner, we Virginians shouldn’t be worrying about next year’s election.
Folks in New Hampshire and Iowa should, of course. They’re accustomed to it.
If the two major parties hadn’t mismanaged things so badly – if self-important states hadn’t begun leapfrogging each other in search of more clout – we wouldn’t have to think seriously about our presidential options until early March, when there’s not much else to think about.
But here we are. Thanks to a truncated nomination process, there’s an excellent chance the presidential field will have been narrowed two finalists before the first robin of spring – and a fair chance neither will be someone most of us would trust anywhere near the Oval Office.
If it turns out that way, we’ll have an eight or nine month “fall campaign” to look forward to. Great fun, no doubt, for hardcore loyalists – who’d vote for a trained chimp if it got their party’s nomination – but rather an ordeal for the rest of us.
Meanwhile, at this joyous season, those of us who want any say whatsoever in choosing our next president must turn our minds from higher things. It’s time to make that contribution. To write letters or make calls to voters in Iowa or New Hampshire. Or, if you’re really dedicated, to go there in person and hit the streets.
But first, you have to pick your candidate.
I’ve been following the campaign for nearly a year, now, and I still haven’t managed that trick. I’ve narrowed my list to a handful of individuals I can actually imagine voting for, but my true first choice isn’t in the field.
If Al Gore decided to run – as a Democrat, a Green, a Whig, or as the nominee of the Prohibition Party – I’d be there.
Please understand, this has little to do with the mess in 2000. I believe the wrong man won – or rather, was declared the winner – that year, but I wasn’t that emotionally invested. In 2000, after eight years as vice president, Mr. Gore had apparently lost touch with himself – so much so that he needed consultants to tell him how to talk, how to dress, etc. As a result, he presented himself as a man so wooden, so without personality, that he actually managed to lose to George W. Bush.
I am – by contemporary standards – fairly liberal, but I also value authenticity in public men and women. In 2000, I voted in the Republican primary – for John McCain – who appeared to have plenty of that.
Today, however, Al Gore is no longer the uncertain heir apparent of 2000. Since his defeat, he has, simultaneously, gotten back in touch with himself and grown in stature. He stands much taller now. He speaks with deep conviction. His passionate advocacy of environmental responsibility – which won him both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize – reflect lifelong, deeply held beliefs.
Al Gore has matured into a great man, yet you can see in him the youthful Senator from Tennessee. He’s regained his integrity.
And that’s important.
Any student of history knows that great presidents are neither born nor made. Of our 43 presidents, only George Washington entered office prepared for the role – which is logical, considering that the Framers shaped Article II precisely to fit him. Every other president grown into the job – or failed to. Indeed, the main quality shared by our greatest presidents has been a capacity for growth.
There are other essential qualities: intellectual curiosity; energy; an understanding of history and of human nature; and the personal experience of loss or defeat. It’s hard to name a great president – or a great ruler from any era – who did not enjoy these qualities.
But a capacity for growth tops the list. And Mr. Gore – in the past seven years – has clearly demonstrated that quality.
There are other things. Mr. Gore understands our planet’s environmental challenges – and how these relate to such issues as social and economic justice and global cooperation. He also understands that these interconnected issues will have far more impact on America’s future than the plotting of Islamic fanatics living in caves.
Of course, Mr. Gore says he’s not running – and I suspect he’s wise. His stature – nationally and globally – is now higher than that of any living president, including the incumbent. He enjoys a level of credibility which would inevitably be tarnished if he became a candidate.
Still, if he changes his mind, his candidacy would become – for many Americans – the crusade of a lifetime. Previous insurgencies – Bobby Kennedy in ‘68, Gary Hart in ‘84, Howard Dean in ‘04 – would seem like rehearsals. I just don’t see it happening.
Which leaves me with a harder choice. In coming weeks, I’ll take a stab at winnowing the field – looking for a president.
Not entirely, of course. There are storm windows to put up, gutters to clean, fallen leaves to compost, outdoor plants to mulch. But with December ‘round the corner, we Virginians shouldn’t be worrying about next year’s election.
Folks in New Hampshire and Iowa should, of course. They’re accustomed to it.
If the two major parties hadn’t mismanaged things so badly – if self-important states hadn’t begun leapfrogging each other in search of more clout – we wouldn’t have to think seriously about our presidential options until early March, when there’s not much else to think about.
But here we are. Thanks to a truncated nomination process, there’s an excellent chance the presidential field will have been narrowed two finalists before the first robin of spring – and a fair chance neither will be someone most of us would trust anywhere near the Oval Office.
If it turns out that way, we’ll have an eight or nine month “fall campaign” to look forward to. Great fun, no doubt, for hardcore loyalists – who’d vote for a trained chimp if it got their party’s nomination – but rather an ordeal for the rest of us.
Meanwhile, at this joyous season, those of us who want any say whatsoever in choosing our next president must turn our minds from higher things. It’s time to make that contribution. To write letters or make calls to voters in Iowa or New Hampshire. Or, if you’re really dedicated, to go there in person and hit the streets.
But first, you have to pick your candidate.
I’ve been following the campaign for nearly a year, now, and I still haven’t managed that trick. I’ve narrowed my list to a handful of individuals I can actually imagine voting for, but my true first choice isn’t in the field.
If Al Gore decided to run – as a Democrat, a Green, a Whig, or as the nominee of the Prohibition Party – I’d be there.
Please understand, this has little to do with the mess in 2000. I believe the wrong man won – or rather, was declared the winner – that year, but I wasn’t that emotionally invested. In 2000, after eight years as vice president, Mr. Gore had apparently lost touch with himself – so much so that he needed consultants to tell him how to talk, how to dress, etc. As a result, he presented himself as a man so wooden, so without personality, that he actually managed to lose to George W. Bush.
I am – by contemporary standards – fairly liberal, but I also value authenticity in public men and women. In 2000, I voted in the Republican primary – for John McCain – who appeared to have plenty of that.
Today, however, Al Gore is no longer the uncertain heir apparent of 2000. Since his defeat, he has, simultaneously, gotten back in touch with himself and grown in stature. He stands much taller now. He speaks with deep conviction. His passionate advocacy of environmental responsibility – which won him both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize – reflect lifelong, deeply held beliefs.
Al Gore has matured into a great man, yet you can see in him the youthful Senator from Tennessee. He’s regained his integrity.
And that’s important.
Any student of history knows that great presidents are neither born nor made. Of our 43 presidents, only George Washington entered office prepared for the role – which is logical, considering that the Framers shaped Article II precisely to fit him. Every other president grown into the job – or failed to. Indeed, the main quality shared by our greatest presidents has been a capacity for growth.
There are other essential qualities: intellectual curiosity; energy; an understanding of history and of human nature; and the personal experience of loss or defeat. It’s hard to name a great president – or a great ruler from any era – who did not enjoy these qualities.
But a capacity for growth tops the list. And Mr. Gore – in the past seven years – has clearly demonstrated that quality.
There are other things. Mr. Gore understands our planet’s environmental challenges – and how these relate to such issues as social and economic justice and global cooperation. He also understands that these interconnected issues will have far more impact on America’s future than the plotting of Islamic fanatics living in caves.
Of course, Mr. Gore says he’s not running – and I suspect he’s wise. His stature – nationally and globally – is now higher than that of any living president, including the incumbent. He enjoys a level of credibility which would inevitably be tarnished if he became a candidate.
Still, if he changes his mind, his candidacy would become – for many Americans – the crusade of a lifetime. Previous insurgencies – Bobby Kennedy in ‘68, Gary Hart in ‘84, Howard Dean in ‘04 – would seem like rehearsals. I just don’t see it happening.
Which leaves me with a harder choice. In coming weeks, I’ll take a stab at winnowing the field – looking for a president.
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Vampire Party
For a year now, I’ve tried writing a piece about why I’ve given up on the Democratic Party.
I attempted a restrained approach, and it came out like a compressed history lecture. Give me 50 minutes and 25 bright students, I could make it scintillating. Packing it into 1000 words or less, it became simultaneously, a brain-buster and a complete yawn.
So I tried letting myself go, resulting in blood-curdling screeds which – while emotionally satisfying – lacked the credibility essential to persuasive writing.
Finally, it came to me. October. Halloween. Vampires.
A theme...
If I could offer one piece of advice to young progressives, it would be this:
The Democratic Party is Count Dracula.
Which is not to recommend the obvious alternative. I have contemporaries who became Republicans decades ago and feel compelled to “stay the course” – out of team spirit, stubborn pride or the hope of getting it right in their next incarnation.
But it’s difficult to imagine significant numbers of intelligent young Americans voluntarily joining the party of George W. Bush.
That said, it doesn’t follow that anyone should – out of loathing for the President – become a Democrat.
Campaign for individual Democrats, sure. If Edwards or Obama – or (it’s apparently possible) Hillary – turns you on, hie thee off to New Hampshire over Christmas break and knock on doors.
I did it in for Dean in ‘04 and – even at my advanced age – it was a blast.
Just don’t drink the Kool-Aid.
Because I’m serious, the Democratic Party is Dracula. It should be long dead, but it lives on – and on – by drinking the lifeblood of generation after generation of young Americans.
It lures them with the vague promise that this generation can seize control of the party, reform it, and turn it – once again – into the great liberal/progressive party of FDR, Harry Truman, and the Kennedys.
Ain’t gonna happen.
The reasons for this are too abstruse and technical for brief treatment, but if you’re up for some homework, I can point you in the right direction.
And it’s important. After all, this isn’t like choosing a college or a first spouse. People transfer and divorce, but most Americans change religions more often than they change parties.
You really should bone up before selling your political soul.
Here’s my basic argument: The Democratic Party can’t be changed because – as one of two major parties – it has a powerful institutional bias toward winning the next election.
Makes sense, right? You can’t govern if you don’t win.
But you also can’t govern – as progressives – if you take money from every special interest on K Street, run to the center, and then, once elected, whip out some liberal agenda you forgot to mention during the campaign.
Voters don’t like it. It’s a question of legitimacy – one of the rare concepts from Political Science that actually makes sense. In a democracy, citizens tend to hold you to what you said during the campaign.
To get away with a radical, hidden agenda, you need something special – say, the Great Depression or 9-11. And you can’t count on that.
Nonetheless, the people who run the Democratic Party – a diverse, but powerful group of insiders – insist, above all, upon winning the next election.
After all, they want to get back into those impressive majority suites on Capitol Hill – or even better, those cramped little offices in the West Wing.
But of course, if your agenda is winning the next election, you don’t want to risk scaring people. Or making them think.
Which is why the Party insisted that Al Gore tone down the environmentalism in 2000. And why they dumped Howard Dean for the “electable” John Kerry in 2004.
I didn’t say Democrats were smart.
Now, you might ask, if winning the next election isn’t the goal, what is it?
Winning the debate.
To transform America, a party must first stake out a bold vision of a better society – then spend the decade or two it takes for the voters to come around.
When I was a kid, in 1964, Barry Goldwater did just that. His minions captured the Republican Party – and Goldwater took one of the worst electoral poundings in American history.
But sixteen years later, Ronald Reagan rode Goldwater’s conservative vision to victory – and the Republicans have been in power ever since.
You might ask, couldn’t today’s young progressives stage the same sort of coup within the Democratic Party?
Unlikely. Coups only succeed except against centralized power structures. Unlike the corporate-style Republicans, the Democrats are essentially a vast coalition – with maybe ten distinct power centers – virtually impregnable to a hostile takeover.
Besides, it’s been tried. Generation after generation – including mine – has joined the Democratic Party, determined to reform it, inject new life into it, and turn it into a progressive counterpart of the GOP.
What actually happens is that Dracula thing. Young progressives, drained of their idealism, slowly morph into middle-aged pragmatists capable of nominating Walter Mondale over Gary Hart, John Kerry over Howard Dean – or Hillary Clinton over someone with a pulse.
Meanwhile, with no party advocating a viable, progressive alternative, the Republicans continue defining the terms of the national political debate – which recedes forever farther rightward.
There’s only one way to change this – and it starts with a stake to the heart.
Still dubious?
Here’s your homework.
Study the decline and fall of the 19th century Whigs – the only major American party to give way to a more viable alternative. You might start with David Potter’s 1976 classic, The Impending Crisis.
Do some reading, then ask yourself: If the principled opponents of slavery had stuck with the Whigs – instead of forming smaller, more radical parties which moved the debate to the left – would we ever have had a President Lincoln? Or an Emancipation Proclamation?
Today’s situation seems analogous.
It’s your call, but to me, joining the Democratic Party is about as wise as allowing that charming Count with the intriguing accent to lure you onto a dark, deserted balcony.
Happy Halloween!
I attempted a restrained approach, and it came out like a compressed history lecture. Give me 50 minutes and 25 bright students, I could make it scintillating. Packing it into 1000 words or less, it became simultaneously, a brain-buster and a complete yawn.
So I tried letting myself go, resulting in blood-curdling screeds which – while emotionally satisfying – lacked the credibility essential to persuasive writing.
Finally, it came to me. October. Halloween. Vampires.
A theme...
If I could offer one piece of advice to young progressives, it would be this:
The Democratic Party is Count Dracula.
Which is not to recommend the obvious alternative. I have contemporaries who became Republicans decades ago and feel compelled to “stay the course” – out of team spirit, stubborn pride or the hope of getting it right in their next incarnation.
But it’s difficult to imagine significant numbers of intelligent young Americans voluntarily joining the party of George W. Bush.
That said, it doesn’t follow that anyone should – out of loathing for the President – become a Democrat.
Campaign for individual Democrats, sure. If Edwards or Obama – or (it’s apparently possible) Hillary – turns you on, hie thee off to New Hampshire over Christmas break and knock on doors.
I did it in for Dean in ‘04 and – even at my advanced age – it was a blast.
Just don’t drink the Kool-Aid.
Because I’m serious, the Democratic Party is Dracula. It should be long dead, but it lives on – and on – by drinking the lifeblood of generation after generation of young Americans.
It lures them with the vague promise that this generation can seize control of the party, reform it, and turn it – once again – into the great liberal/progressive party of FDR, Harry Truman, and the Kennedys.
Ain’t gonna happen.
The reasons for this are too abstruse and technical for brief treatment, but if you’re up for some homework, I can point you in the right direction.
And it’s important. After all, this isn’t like choosing a college or a first spouse. People transfer and divorce, but most Americans change religions more often than they change parties.
You really should bone up before selling your political soul.
Here’s my basic argument: The Democratic Party can’t be changed because – as one of two major parties – it has a powerful institutional bias toward winning the next election.
Makes sense, right? You can’t govern if you don’t win.
But you also can’t govern – as progressives – if you take money from every special interest on K Street, run to the center, and then, once elected, whip out some liberal agenda you forgot to mention during the campaign.
Voters don’t like it. It’s a question of legitimacy – one of the rare concepts from Political Science that actually makes sense. In a democracy, citizens tend to hold you to what you said during the campaign.
To get away with a radical, hidden agenda, you need something special – say, the Great Depression or 9-11. And you can’t count on that.
Nonetheless, the people who run the Democratic Party – a diverse, but powerful group of insiders – insist, above all, upon winning the next election.
After all, they want to get back into those impressive majority suites on Capitol Hill – or even better, those cramped little offices in the West Wing.
But of course, if your agenda is winning the next election, you don’t want to risk scaring people. Or making them think.
Which is why the Party insisted that Al Gore tone down the environmentalism in 2000. And why they dumped Howard Dean for the “electable” John Kerry in 2004.
I didn’t say Democrats were smart.
Now, you might ask, if winning the next election isn’t the goal, what is it?
Winning the debate.
To transform America, a party must first stake out a bold vision of a better society – then spend the decade or two it takes for the voters to come around.
When I was a kid, in 1964, Barry Goldwater did just that. His minions captured the Republican Party – and Goldwater took one of the worst electoral poundings in American history.
But sixteen years later, Ronald Reagan rode Goldwater’s conservative vision to victory – and the Republicans have been in power ever since.
You might ask, couldn’t today’s young progressives stage the same sort of coup within the Democratic Party?
Unlikely. Coups only succeed except against centralized power structures. Unlike the corporate-style Republicans, the Democrats are essentially a vast coalition – with maybe ten distinct power centers – virtually impregnable to a hostile takeover.
Besides, it’s been tried. Generation after generation – including mine – has joined the Democratic Party, determined to reform it, inject new life into it, and turn it into a progressive counterpart of the GOP.
What actually happens is that Dracula thing. Young progressives, drained of their idealism, slowly morph into middle-aged pragmatists capable of nominating Walter Mondale over Gary Hart, John Kerry over Howard Dean – or Hillary Clinton over someone with a pulse.
Meanwhile, with no party advocating a viable, progressive alternative, the Republicans continue defining the terms of the national political debate – which recedes forever farther rightward.
There’s only one way to change this – and it starts with a stake to the heart.
Still dubious?
Here’s your homework.
Study the decline and fall of the 19th century Whigs – the only major American party to give way to a more viable alternative. You might start with David Potter’s 1976 classic, The Impending Crisis.
Do some reading, then ask yourself: If the principled opponents of slavery had stuck with the Whigs – instead of forming smaller, more radical parties which moved the debate to the left – would we ever have had a President Lincoln? Or an Emancipation Proclamation?
Today’s situation seems analogous.
It’s your call, but to me, joining the Democratic Party is about as wise as allowing that charming Count with the intriguing accent to lure you onto a dark, deserted balcony.
Happy Halloween!
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Going Down With the Ship
During a recent a campaign appearance, Senator Hillary Clinton described one of the main challenges of her prospective administration as undoing virtually the entire program of President Bush.
Given the realities of politics, Senator Clinton’s proposal was breathtakingly ambitious. Granted, her target audience – Democratic primary voters – regards the Bush presidency as a disaster. Nonetheless, erasing the work of an eight-year administration would be a mammoth undertaking, even for a President with no other agenda.
Historically literate citizens realize that – good or bad – established policy is nearly always harder to undo than to initiate. But this leads, inevitably, to a further consideration.
If the entire Bush administration has been such an unmitigated disaster, wouldn’t it have been easier to avoid the whole sordid mess by preventing Mr. Bush’s election in the first place?
And if so, wasn’t First Lady Hillary Clinton in an ideal position to do just that in 1998 – by insisting that her husband resign at the nadir of the Lewinsky scandal?
After all, Mrs. Clinton knew the precedent. President Nixon, crippled by Watergate, was forced to resign when his own party turned against him. Indeed, since Vice-President Spiro Agnew had already resigned in disgrace, Gerald Ford – America’s first appointed Vice-President – assumed office.
The result was entirely positive, for the nation and the GOP.
Relieved of the distractions of scandal and the faltering leadership of a President hopelessly on the defensive, America began addressing a host of problems – including the endgame in Vietnam.
And the Republican Party – by refusing to follow Nixon into oblivion – put itself in position to run a strong race in 1976 and to recover the White House in 1980 – the beginning of nearly three decades of power only now drawing to a close.
Apparently, it never occurred to most Democrats – including Mrs. Clinton – to follow the Nixon precedent.
It did occur to me. In 1998, mine was a rare Democratic voice urging President Clinton to resign. Sadly, Congressional Democrats – and the First Lady – chose another course. Instead of demanding Mr. Clinton’s resignation, they rallied behind him – effectively dooming the prospects of his successor.
Instead of running as the incumbent – and his own man – Vice President Al Gore was tainted with the stench of a scandal in which he had played no part. Despite a roaring economy, Federal budget surpluses, progress on most international fronts, and a general sense of national well-being, Mr. Gore lost – by the narrowest of Electoral margins – to a candidate promising to bring personal morality back to the Oval Office.
The result has been six years of scandal, incompetence, assaults on the Bill of Rights, and needless, bloody war – with nearly two more to go.
None of which would have occurred had Governor Bush faced an incumbent President Gore in 2000. Under those circumstances, Mr. Gore would almost certainly have won election in his own right, and America – and the world – would have taken a very different course.
Yet today, congressional Republicans - ignoring the Nixon precedent – are repeating the Democratic blunder of 1998.
It’s a poor choice.
Imagine, if you will, that congressional Republicans summoned the courage to confront President Bush with this ultimatum:
“Respectfully, sir, your usefulness is at an end. Your credibility – the indispensable coin of the American presidency – is lost. The list of your failures is long. Almost unattended, Afghanistan is slipping away. Two years after Katrina, a major American city still lies in ruins.
“Worst of all, we are mired in a Mesopotamian civil war which cannot be ended under your leadership. Perhaps the situation can still be saved. Perhaps not. But your mental inflexibility, your inability to heed advice that does not conform to your preconceptions and your obsession with your ‘legacy’ virtually assures defeat.
“They also assure an electoral disaster for our party in 2008.
“It’s time for you to go.”
Now, Mr. Bush is a stubborn man, but congressional Republicans have the means of persuasion. President Nixon left office – not because of Democratic pressure – but because congressional Republicans were prepare to impeach him.
Once again, grounds for impeachment exist.
Mr. Bush’s deliberate falsehoods in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq; his sweetheart deals with favored corporations; his complicity in the political removal of Federal district attorneys; and his utter disregard of statutory and constitutional protections for individual privacy and the rights of prisoners and defendants – any one would provide legitimate grounds for impeachment.
If they chose, congressional Republicans could compel Mr. Bush to resign – preceded by Mr. Cheney.
And if, following Mr. Nixon’s precedent all the way, Mr. Cheney’s replacement were someone of stature and military competence – a Colin Powell, say – Republicans might yet stand a chance of retaining the White House, and regaining Congress, in 2008.
It won’t happen, of course. As the Democrats clung to Clinton, the Republicans will go down with Bush.
But if the whole tragic cycle ends with Mr. Clinton back in the White House – as the President’s consort – Republicans will have only themselves to blame.
Given the realities of politics, Senator Clinton’s proposal was breathtakingly ambitious. Granted, her target audience – Democratic primary voters – regards the Bush presidency as a disaster. Nonetheless, erasing the work of an eight-year administration would be a mammoth undertaking, even for a President with no other agenda.
Historically literate citizens realize that – good or bad – established policy is nearly always harder to undo than to initiate. But this leads, inevitably, to a further consideration.
If the entire Bush administration has been such an unmitigated disaster, wouldn’t it have been easier to avoid the whole sordid mess by preventing Mr. Bush’s election in the first place?
And if so, wasn’t First Lady Hillary Clinton in an ideal position to do just that in 1998 – by insisting that her husband resign at the nadir of the Lewinsky scandal?
After all, Mrs. Clinton knew the precedent. President Nixon, crippled by Watergate, was forced to resign when his own party turned against him. Indeed, since Vice-President Spiro Agnew had already resigned in disgrace, Gerald Ford – America’s first appointed Vice-President – assumed office.
The result was entirely positive, for the nation and the GOP.
Relieved of the distractions of scandal and the faltering leadership of a President hopelessly on the defensive, America began addressing a host of problems – including the endgame in Vietnam.
And the Republican Party – by refusing to follow Nixon into oblivion – put itself in position to run a strong race in 1976 and to recover the White House in 1980 – the beginning of nearly three decades of power only now drawing to a close.
Apparently, it never occurred to most Democrats – including Mrs. Clinton – to follow the Nixon precedent.
It did occur to me. In 1998, mine was a rare Democratic voice urging President Clinton to resign. Sadly, Congressional Democrats – and the First Lady – chose another course. Instead of demanding Mr. Clinton’s resignation, they rallied behind him – effectively dooming the prospects of his successor.
Instead of running as the incumbent – and his own man – Vice President Al Gore was tainted with the stench of a scandal in which he had played no part. Despite a roaring economy, Federal budget surpluses, progress on most international fronts, and a general sense of national well-being, Mr. Gore lost – by the narrowest of Electoral margins – to a candidate promising to bring personal morality back to the Oval Office.
The result has been six years of scandal, incompetence, assaults on the Bill of Rights, and needless, bloody war – with nearly two more to go.
None of which would have occurred had Governor Bush faced an incumbent President Gore in 2000. Under those circumstances, Mr. Gore would almost certainly have won election in his own right, and America – and the world – would have taken a very different course.
Yet today, congressional Republicans - ignoring the Nixon precedent – are repeating the Democratic blunder of 1998.
It’s a poor choice.
Imagine, if you will, that congressional Republicans summoned the courage to confront President Bush with this ultimatum:
“Respectfully, sir, your usefulness is at an end. Your credibility – the indispensable coin of the American presidency – is lost. The list of your failures is long. Almost unattended, Afghanistan is slipping away. Two years after Katrina, a major American city still lies in ruins.
“Worst of all, we are mired in a Mesopotamian civil war which cannot be ended under your leadership. Perhaps the situation can still be saved. Perhaps not. But your mental inflexibility, your inability to heed advice that does not conform to your preconceptions and your obsession with your ‘legacy’ virtually assures defeat.
“They also assure an electoral disaster for our party in 2008.
“It’s time for you to go.”
Now, Mr. Bush is a stubborn man, but congressional Republicans have the means of persuasion. President Nixon left office – not because of Democratic pressure – but because congressional Republicans were prepare to impeach him.
Once again, grounds for impeachment exist.
Mr. Bush’s deliberate falsehoods in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq; his sweetheart deals with favored corporations; his complicity in the political removal of Federal district attorneys; and his utter disregard of statutory and constitutional protections for individual privacy and the rights of prisoners and defendants – any one would provide legitimate grounds for impeachment.
If they chose, congressional Republicans could compel Mr. Bush to resign – preceded by Mr. Cheney.
And if, following Mr. Nixon’s precedent all the way, Mr. Cheney’s replacement were someone of stature and military competence – a Colin Powell, say – Republicans might yet stand a chance of retaining the White House, and regaining Congress, in 2008.
It won’t happen, of course. As the Democrats clung to Clinton, the Republicans will go down with Bush.
But if the whole tragic cycle ends with Mr. Clinton back in the White House – as the President’s consort – Republicans will have only themselves to blame.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Who Will Lead?
I'm looking for a candidate for President, and thus far, the search isn't going well.
There are a fair number of candidates - mostly Democrats - whom I could support on the basis of domestic issues. Assuming Al Gore has really ruled out another run, I'd probably sign on with John Edwards right now, except for one thing.
Mesopotamia.
In terms of America's future, there will be more important issues facing the next President. Global warming. Energy independence. Our mediocre public schools. Health coverage for all Americans.
All of these will probably have more impact on the long term well-being of the nation than the final resolution of the mess in Mesopotamia.
But none will so clearly demonstrate the character of America - and of the man or woman we choose as our next leader.
Simply stated, the way we leave Mesopotamia - and what we leave behind - will be a test of our national character.
We have a decision to make: Whether to take responsibility for the mess we have created - or attempt to fob it off on the feeble "government" of our creation while we scuttle away, leaving behind a situation more dangerous to regional stability - and our national interests - than Saddam ever was.
As things now stand, there is only one certainty. Whichever candidate is elected President in 2008, he or she will have - or profess to have - a strategy for the prompt withdrawal of American forces in Mesopotamia.
There may be candidates who oppose withdrawal, but - short of a military or political miracle - such candidates have no real chance of election. The American people have turned their backs on this war - and there is no precedent for their regaining enthusiasm for an unpopular war once they have expressed their opposition at the polls.
In other words, as things now stand, come January 20, 2009, our options in Mesopotamia will be reduced to how we choose to save face.
In the meanwhile, however, the campaign of 2008 is upon us. Out of that campaign, there may come a policy which better reflects our national honor - and serves our national interests - than mere withdrawal. In my view, the candidate who offers such an option will deserve - and very probably win - the election.
It's a risk - advocating the restoration of what our neighbors to the north call "peace, order and good government" before we leave Mesopotamia. It's far easier to play to the discontents of the majority by calling for some sort of pull-out. It's far easier to blame the Iraqis, or their government, for failing to solve the problem.
But it isn't their problem to solve. It's ours.
America's invasion of Iraq shattered the state almost beyond repair. Our subsequent failure to impose order and rebuild the infrastructure - added to our inane policy of attempting to transform Iraq into a Western-style democracy - led to civil war.
If we leave now, while laying the blame on the government of Iraq, the sequel will be one of two things: An intensification of civil war, which will eventually draw in neighboring states; or a Shi'ite-dominated Iraq dependent upon Iran for military and political guidance.
Either outcome would be disastrous for the US.
As I have written before, the obvious solution is for the US to cut the Gordian knot by partitioning the former Iraq into three states.
The key to partition is to award both Mosul and Kirkuk, with their surrounding oil fields and a decent territorial buffer, to a new Kurdistan. In return for independence and US protection, this Kurdish state would be required to observe three conditions: Hosting long-term US bases on Kurdish soil; agreeing not to encourage Kurdish separatists inside Turkey - or, without US permission, inside Syria or Iran; and committing to pay a gradually-declining percentage of Kurdish oil revenues to the new Sunni state in return for peace.
Assuming the Kurds accepted national sovereignty on these terms, the US could then sever the Sunni and Shi'ite portions of Mesopotamia - partitioning Baghdad along the Tigris River and using US force to assure an orderly exchange of populations within the divided city.
That done, US and British forces could turn the new Sunni state over to the supervision of its responsible neighbors - preferably under the overall guidance of Jordan. The new Shi'ite state would, inevitably, come under the tutelage of Iran. The border between the Sunni and Shi'a states would remain ours to patrol until arrangements could be made for a UN peace-keeping force.
The great advantage of partition lies in its expedition and relatively orderliness. Mesopotamia is already breaking apart. That is its fate. But the separation is now occurring with a maximum of lawlessness and bloodshed. The establishment of three states under US supervision would permit the peaceful exchange of populations and - equally important - the return of nearly a million refugees representing much of the educated, propertied, and professional class of the former Iraq.
Partition is the best thing for the people of Mesopotamia. It would also serve long-term US interests.
Done properly, partition would establish a new balance of power in the Middle East. The new Kurdistan would operate as a check on Turkish pretensions and as a potential US tool for influencing the good behavior of Iran and Syria - both of which contain large Kurdish enclaves adjacent to the new Kurdish state.
The new Sunni state would be small, relatively weak, and without oil. It would, however, contain a large part of the educated and professional class of the former Iraq and - aided by the temporary oil subsidy from Kurdistan - it could well transform itself into something like a modern society. Indeed, if Fareed Zakaria is correct, its very oil-lessness could prove the key to its evolving democratic institutions.
The great weakness of partition would lie in the fact that half of the former Iraq would come under Iranian tutelage. However, as I have pointed out before, an American withdrawal without partition would most likely leave Iran in control of the whole of Iraq - and leave Iraq in greater need of Iranian military and political aid in order to suppress Sunni separatism.
Without partition, Iranian influence over Iraq would, presumably, last indefinitely. With partition, Iranian influence over the Shi'ite rump would be of shorter endurance. As soon as the Shi'ite state regained stability and began producing considerable oil, the differences between the new, Arab state and its overweening Persian neighbor would begin to become apparent.
To me, all this seems obvious. Partition is the only responsible course - given that Americans will no longer support a long-term commitment of military force to carry out the President's impossible mission.
Yet to date, no Presidential candidate has stepped up to the plate. Instead, we continue to hear variations on two themes: "Stay the course - with more troops"; and "Blame the Iraqis - and withdraw".
The former course does no justice to our national intelligence. The latter, no credit to our national character.
And neither does much credit to the ever-growing number of politicians who think themselves worthy of the office of President of the United States.
There are a fair number of candidates - mostly Democrats - whom I could support on the basis of domestic issues. Assuming Al Gore has really ruled out another run, I'd probably sign on with John Edwards right now, except for one thing.
Mesopotamia.
In terms of America's future, there will be more important issues facing the next President. Global warming. Energy independence. Our mediocre public schools. Health coverage for all Americans.
All of these will probably have more impact on the long term well-being of the nation than the final resolution of the mess in Mesopotamia.
But none will so clearly demonstrate the character of America - and of the man or woman we choose as our next leader.
Simply stated, the way we leave Mesopotamia - and what we leave behind - will be a test of our national character.
We have a decision to make: Whether to take responsibility for the mess we have created - or attempt to fob it off on the feeble "government" of our creation while we scuttle away, leaving behind a situation more dangerous to regional stability - and our national interests - than Saddam ever was.
As things now stand, there is only one certainty. Whichever candidate is elected President in 2008, he or she will have - or profess to have - a strategy for the prompt withdrawal of American forces in Mesopotamia.
There may be candidates who oppose withdrawal, but - short of a military or political miracle - such candidates have no real chance of election. The American people have turned their backs on this war - and there is no precedent for their regaining enthusiasm for an unpopular war once they have expressed their opposition at the polls.
In other words, as things now stand, come January 20, 2009, our options in Mesopotamia will be reduced to how we choose to save face.
In the meanwhile, however, the campaign of 2008 is upon us. Out of that campaign, there may come a policy which better reflects our national honor - and serves our national interests - than mere withdrawal. In my view, the candidate who offers such an option will deserve - and very probably win - the election.
It's a risk - advocating the restoration of what our neighbors to the north call "peace, order and good government" before we leave Mesopotamia. It's far easier to play to the discontents of the majority by calling for some sort of pull-out. It's far easier to blame the Iraqis, or their government, for failing to solve the problem.
But it isn't their problem to solve. It's ours.
America's invasion of Iraq shattered the state almost beyond repair. Our subsequent failure to impose order and rebuild the infrastructure - added to our inane policy of attempting to transform Iraq into a Western-style democracy - led to civil war.
If we leave now, while laying the blame on the government of Iraq, the sequel will be one of two things: An intensification of civil war, which will eventually draw in neighboring states; or a Shi'ite-dominated Iraq dependent upon Iran for military and political guidance.
Either outcome would be disastrous for the US.
As I have written before, the obvious solution is for the US to cut the Gordian knot by partitioning the former Iraq into three states.
The key to partition is to award both Mosul and Kirkuk, with their surrounding oil fields and a decent territorial buffer, to a new Kurdistan. In return for independence and US protection, this Kurdish state would be required to observe three conditions: Hosting long-term US bases on Kurdish soil; agreeing not to encourage Kurdish separatists inside Turkey - or, without US permission, inside Syria or Iran; and committing to pay a gradually-declining percentage of Kurdish oil revenues to the new Sunni state in return for peace.
Assuming the Kurds accepted national sovereignty on these terms, the US could then sever the Sunni and Shi'ite portions of Mesopotamia - partitioning Baghdad along the Tigris River and using US force to assure an orderly exchange of populations within the divided city.
That done, US and British forces could turn the new Sunni state over to the supervision of its responsible neighbors - preferably under the overall guidance of Jordan. The new Shi'ite state would, inevitably, come under the tutelage of Iran. The border between the Sunni and Shi'a states would remain ours to patrol until arrangements could be made for a UN peace-keeping force.
The great advantage of partition lies in its expedition and relatively orderliness. Mesopotamia is already breaking apart. That is its fate. But the separation is now occurring with a maximum of lawlessness and bloodshed. The establishment of three states under US supervision would permit the peaceful exchange of populations and - equally important - the return of nearly a million refugees representing much of the educated, propertied, and professional class of the former Iraq.
Partition is the best thing for the people of Mesopotamia. It would also serve long-term US interests.
Done properly, partition would establish a new balance of power in the Middle East. The new Kurdistan would operate as a check on Turkish pretensions and as a potential US tool for influencing the good behavior of Iran and Syria - both of which contain large Kurdish enclaves adjacent to the new Kurdish state.
The new Sunni state would be small, relatively weak, and without oil. It would, however, contain a large part of the educated and professional class of the former Iraq and - aided by the temporary oil subsidy from Kurdistan - it could well transform itself into something like a modern society. Indeed, if Fareed Zakaria is correct, its very oil-lessness could prove the key to its evolving democratic institutions.
The great weakness of partition would lie in the fact that half of the former Iraq would come under Iranian tutelage. However, as I have pointed out before, an American withdrawal without partition would most likely leave Iran in control of the whole of Iraq - and leave Iraq in greater need of Iranian military and political aid in order to suppress Sunni separatism.
Without partition, Iranian influence over Iraq would, presumably, last indefinitely. With partition, Iranian influence over the Shi'ite rump would be of shorter endurance. As soon as the Shi'ite state regained stability and began producing considerable oil, the differences between the new, Arab state and its overweening Persian neighbor would begin to become apparent.
To me, all this seems obvious. Partition is the only responsible course - given that Americans will no longer support a long-term commitment of military force to carry out the President's impossible mission.
Yet to date, no Presidential candidate has stepped up to the plate. Instead, we continue to hear variations on two themes: "Stay the course - with more troops"; and "Blame the Iraqis - and withdraw".
The former course does no justice to our national intelligence. The latter, no credit to our national character.
And neither does much credit to the ever-growing number of politicians who think themselves worthy of the office of President of the United States.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
What The Decider Should Decide
In all fairness, George W. Bush was never cut out to be president. But for the accident of his birth, this modestly gifted man would have spent his life in relative obscurity – a good neighbor, pillar of his community and church, and all-around good guy. Living the ordinary life for which Nature fitted him, he would likely have been happier.
Assuredly, his country would have been.
Instead, Mr. Bush – president by virtue of his last name, a bit of Oval Office hanky-panky, and the decision of a divided Supreme Court – is now challenging James Buchanan for last place in the historical rankings of America’s presidents.
Personally, I doubt he’ll make it. Buchanan, after all, lost seven states – not in the electoral college – from the Union. Had it not been for the extraordinary leadership of his successor, Buchanan might have gone down in history as the last President of the United States. In terms of character, at least, the decisive Mr. Bush stands head and shoulders above the dithering Buchanan.
Unfortunately, given his disinclination for personal study or deep reflection, Mr. Bush’s decisiveness has often proved a weakness. He has relied too readily on the advice of others of his class – well-heeled men in tailored suits who speak in the ultra- macho, football-and-combat vernacular popular among those who earn millions without ever getting their well-manicured hands dirty.
As a result, Mr. Bush has decisively put himself on the wrong side of many issues – environmental, scientific, economic, and social. For these errors, History might well forgive him. But he has also led his country into an absolute quagmire in Mesopotamia – overextending our military to the breaking point, alienating our allies, and bankrupting our treasury.
For this one mistake, many times compounded, History will almost certainly judge him harshly.
In his decision to commit 21,500 additional troops to the mess in Mesopotamia, President Bush has disregarded the judgment of his fellow citizens, clearly registered in the mid-term elections. He has flown in the face of informed military opinion, as reflected in the outspoken opposition of retired generals who had heretofore supported him. He has lost the near-unanimous support of Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Today, Mr. Bush is approaching the nadir Mr. Clinton reached after he lied to the nation about his relations with Miss Lewinsky. A weakened President, having lost his majorities in both houses of Congress, enters the last two years of his presidency with dismal approval ratings and his party on the verge of mutiny.
Eight years ago, I was among the handful of Democrats who publicly urged Mr. Clinton’s resignation. My reasons had something to do with his infidelity, more to do with his mendacity, and much to do with his forfeiture of that priceless presidential asset – credibility.
But my main reason was that I was more interested in the issues Mr. Clinton championed – and the party he led – than in the man himself. Mr. Clinton had become a liability. If he resigned, President Gore could have used the next two years to regain the policy initiative – and to enter the 2000 presidential campaign as a prohibitive favorite for election in his own right.
Looking back over the past six years, it’s painful to think where America might be today had President Gore won re-election in 2000 – as he certainly would have.
We would, of course, have troops in Afghanistan. More troops, including the special ops teams which were diverted from chasing Osama to overthrowing Saddam.
We’d probably not be in Iraq, though we might have peacekeeping forces in Darfur.
We’d probably still be operating at or near a balanced budget, instead of running record deficits fueled by upper-class tax cuts. We’d likely be moving toward energy independence, and leading the world in combating global climate change. And New Orleans would probably be a lot closer to realizing its renaissance.
But that’s my fantasy. Mr. Clinton decided to cling to office – and history took a different course.
Today, I’d like to present a Republican fantasy – one that will almost certainly not happen – but which could happen, if Republican leaders consulted their own self-interest.
Suppose those leaders compelled Mr. Bush to face the fact that he has led his country into a mess from which he lacks the judgment, imagination, and political clout to extract it.
Suppose they persuaded him to act with extraordinary patriotism and self-sacrifice – to rescue Iraq from civil war, his country from quagmire, and his party from near-certain defeat in 2008.
Suppose Mr. Bush demanded Dick Cheney’s resignation and nominated Colin Powell to replace him – and then, upon Powell’s confirmation, followed Richard Nixon’s example by resigning the presidency.
Can anyone doubt that President Powell, soldier and diplomat, would be uniquely equipped to tackle the complex military and diplomatic challenges of Iraq?
Can anyone doubt that President Powell, with two years of incumbency under his belt, would handily defeat any Democratic challenger in 2008?
Can anyone doubt that, as America’s first black President – and a Republican – Mr. Powell would preside over a party realignment that would dwarf the fantasies of Karl Rove, making the Republicans a majority for at least for the next few decades?
It won’t happen, of course. Mr. Bush, like Mr. Clinton before him, will lead his party over a cliff in 2008.
Because no Republican will tell him it’s time to go, the future will be left to The Decider.
Assuredly, his country would have been.
Instead, Mr. Bush – president by virtue of his last name, a bit of Oval Office hanky-panky, and the decision of a divided Supreme Court – is now challenging James Buchanan for last place in the historical rankings of America’s presidents.
Personally, I doubt he’ll make it. Buchanan, after all, lost seven states – not in the electoral college – from the Union. Had it not been for the extraordinary leadership of his successor, Buchanan might have gone down in history as the last President of the United States. In terms of character, at least, the decisive Mr. Bush stands head and shoulders above the dithering Buchanan.
Unfortunately, given his disinclination for personal study or deep reflection, Mr. Bush’s decisiveness has often proved a weakness. He has relied too readily on the advice of others of his class – well-heeled men in tailored suits who speak in the ultra- macho, football-and-combat vernacular popular among those who earn millions without ever getting their well-manicured hands dirty.
As a result, Mr. Bush has decisively put himself on the wrong side of many issues – environmental, scientific, economic, and social. For these errors, History might well forgive him. But he has also led his country into an absolute quagmire in Mesopotamia – overextending our military to the breaking point, alienating our allies, and bankrupting our treasury.
For this one mistake, many times compounded, History will almost certainly judge him harshly.
In his decision to commit 21,500 additional troops to the mess in Mesopotamia, President Bush has disregarded the judgment of his fellow citizens, clearly registered in the mid-term elections. He has flown in the face of informed military opinion, as reflected in the outspoken opposition of retired generals who had heretofore supported him. He has lost the near-unanimous support of Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Today, Mr. Bush is approaching the nadir Mr. Clinton reached after he lied to the nation about his relations with Miss Lewinsky. A weakened President, having lost his majorities in both houses of Congress, enters the last two years of his presidency with dismal approval ratings and his party on the verge of mutiny.
Eight years ago, I was among the handful of Democrats who publicly urged Mr. Clinton’s resignation. My reasons had something to do with his infidelity, more to do with his mendacity, and much to do with his forfeiture of that priceless presidential asset – credibility.
But my main reason was that I was more interested in the issues Mr. Clinton championed – and the party he led – than in the man himself. Mr. Clinton had become a liability. If he resigned, President Gore could have used the next two years to regain the policy initiative – and to enter the 2000 presidential campaign as a prohibitive favorite for election in his own right.
Looking back over the past six years, it’s painful to think where America might be today had President Gore won re-election in 2000 – as he certainly would have.
We would, of course, have troops in Afghanistan. More troops, including the special ops teams which were diverted from chasing Osama to overthrowing Saddam.
We’d probably not be in Iraq, though we might have peacekeeping forces in Darfur.
We’d probably still be operating at or near a balanced budget, instead of running record deficits fueled by upper-class tax cuts. We’d likely be moving toward energy independence, and leading the world in combating global climate change. And New Orleans would probably be a lot closer to realizing its renaissance.
But that’s my fantasy. Mr. Clinton decided to cling to office – and history took a different course.
Today, I’d like to present a Republican fantasy – one that will almost certainly not happen – but which could happen, if Republican leaders consulted their own self-interest.
Suppose those leaders compelled Mr. Bush to face the fact that he has led his country into a mess from which he lacks the judgment, imagination, and political clout to extract it.
Suppose they persuaded him to act with extraordinary patriotism and self-sacrifice – to rescue Iraq from civil war, his country from quagmire, and his party from near-certain defeat in 2008.
Suppose Mr. Bush demanded Dick Cheney’s resignation and nominated Colin Powell to replace him – and then, upon Powell’s confirmation, followed Richard Nixon’s example by resigning the presidency.
Can anyone doubt that President Powell, soldier and diplomat, would be uniquely equipped to tackle the complex military and diplomatic challenges of Iraq?
Can anyone doubt that President Powell, with two years of incumbency under his belt, would handily defeat any Democratic challenger in 2008?
Can anyone doubt that, as America’s first black President – and a Republican – Mr. Powell would preside over a party realignment that would dwarf the fantasies of Karl Rove, making the Republicans a majority for at least for the next few decades?
It won’t happen, of course. Mr. Bush, like Mr. Clinton before him, will lead his party over a cliff in 2008.
Because no Republican will tell him it’s time to go, the future will be left to The Decider.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Why Presidents Can’t Quit, Part Two
Last week, I explored the curious historical fact that American presidents never resign from office – even in circumstances which would be regarded as completely untenable in a parliamentary democracy. With the exception of Richard Nixon, who resigned only to avoid the inevitable shame of impeachment and removal, no president – even under conditions of disability or disgrace – has chosen to leave office before the end of his term.
This historical anomaly has much to do with the weakness of American political parties vis-a-vis incumbent presidents. Another explanation lies in the absence of historical precedents. Simply stated, Americans – with their characteristic ignorance of how other democracies govern themselves – simply can’t imagine resignation as a viable option, because it doesn’t appear in their own history.
Today, as an intellectual exercise, I’d like to imagine that – over the course of American history – two or three presidents had been compelled to step down by the leaders of their parties. Imagine, for example, that congressional Democrats had insisted that Woodrow Wilson do the right thing after a series of strokes disabled him. Or that Warren G. Harding – instead of dying with suspicious convenience on the eve of scandal – had been forced to resign in favor of the upright Calvin Coolidge.
Would these hypothetical events, combined with Nixon’s resignation, have created sufficient precedent for Americans to consider resignation as a viable part of our political heritage? And, if so, might we have witnessed other historic resignations in our own times?
I was not a writer when George H. W. Bush announced for re-election in 1992, so I cannot prove what follows. But I recall, during several Charlottesville bull sessions, strongly advocating that President Bush resign before the end of his first term – not in disgrace, but to win greater glory.
My argument ran as follows.
President Bush stood at the pinnacle of national and international esteem. He had deftly managed America’s response to the implosion of the Soviet Union and its aftermath. He had, for the first time since the Korean War, rallied the United Nations to repel an act of military aggression by force, thus restoring the independence of Kuwait.
That said, Mr. Bush appeared to have no second-term agenda. He was running for re-election, it seemed, not because he had “fire in the belly”, but because he liked being President. Without passion or agenda, he seemed likely to lose to whomever the Democrats nominated.
But what if the President indicated a willingness to resign a year early in order to be named the first American Secretary-General of the United Nations? He would, by that single, dramatic act, add immeasurably to the prestige and power of the UN – while securing his place in history as the man gave up the world’s greatest job in order to make the UN a viable force for peace and justice in the world.
He would also permit the Republican Party to choose a candidate up to the challenge eventually provided by Bill Clinton.
It is, of course, inconceivable that President Bush would have followed this course. That is precisely my point. It shouldn’t have been inconceivable.
In 1998, after the Lewinsky affair had derailed the Clinton presidency, I joined a handful of other Democrats who called for the President to resign – not because of his sexual peccadilloes, but because his subsequent lies had destroyed the most indispensable of presidential assets – his credibility.
Understand, please, that I’d always liked President Clinton. I still do. But I believed he had forfeited any chance of achieving further policy successes. I also believed the Democratic Party would fare far better in 2000 if a President Gore entered the campaign with two years of incumbency to his credit – and considerable distance between himself and the Clinton scandals.
Today, looking back on the disaster of the Bush presidency, I regard Clinton’s failure to resign as one of the most consequential decisions in American history.
Had Clinton resigned, we would – in all probability – be in the ninth year of the Gore administration. American troops would certainly be in Afghanistan. They would almost certainly not be in Iraq, though we might now be doing something about Darfur.
America would be leading the world in seeking alternate energy sources and combating global warming. The Supreme Court would probably remain balanced between its left and right wings. And New Orleans, I sincerely believe, would be far closer to a brilliant renaissance.
In historical hindsight, Democrats, liberals – and all those who have lost loved ones in the Mesopotamian quagmire – have much to regret in Mr. Clinton’s decision to cling to office.
It isn’t hard to imagine Republicans, a decade hence, feeling much the same about their inability to compel the resignation of the disastrous George W. Bush in time to salvage their prospects in 2008.
This historical anomaly has much to do with the weakness of American political parties vis-a-vis incumbent presidents. Another explanation lies in the absence of historical precedents. Simply stated, Americans – with their characteristic ignorance of how other democracies govern themselves – simply can’t imagine resignation as a viable option, because it doesn’t appear in their own history.
Today, as an intellectual exercise, I’d like to imagine that – over the course of American history – two or three presidents had been compelled to step down by the leaders of their parties. Imagine, for example, that congressional Democrats had insisted that Woodrow Wilson do the right thing after a series of strokes disabled him. Or that Warren G. Harding – instead of dying with suspicious convenience on the eve of scandal – had been forced to resign in favor of the upright Calvin Coolidge.
Would these hypothetical events, combined with Nixon’s resignation, have created sufficient precedent for Americans to consider resignation as a viable part of our political heritage? And, if so, might we have witnessed other historic resignations in our own times?
I was not a writer when George H. W. Bush announced for re-election in 1992, so I cannot prove what follows. But I recall, during several Charlottesville bull sessions, strongly advocating that President Bush resign before the end of his first term – not in disgrace, but to win greater glory.
My argument ran as follows.
President Bush stood at the pinnacle of national and international esteem. He had deftly managed America’s response to the implosion of the Soviet Union and its aftermath. He had, for the first time since the Korean War, rallied the United Nations to repel an act of military aggression by force, thus restoring the independence of Kuwait.
That said, Mr. Bush appeared to have no second-term agenda. He was running for re-election, it seemed, not because he had “fire in the belly”, but because he liked being President. Without passion or agenda, he seemed likely to lose to whomever the Democrats nominated.
But what if the President indicated a willingness to resign a year early in order to be named the first American Secretary-General of the United Nations? He would, by that single, dramatic act, add immeasurably to the prestige and power of the UN – while securing his place in history as the man gave up the world’s greatest job in order to make the UN a viable force for peace and justice in the world.
He would also permit the Republican Party to choose a candidate up to the challenge eventually provided by Bill Clinton.
It is, of course, inconceivable that President Bush would have followed this course. That is precisely my point. It shouldn’t have been inconceivable.
In 1998, after the Lewinsky affair had derailed the Clinton presidency, I joined a handful of other Democrats who called for the President to resign – not because of his sexual peccadilloes, but because his subsequent lies had destroyed the most indispensable of presidential assets – his credibility.
Understand, please, that I’d always liked President Clinton. I still do. But I believed he had forfeited any chance of achieving further policy successes. I also believed the Democratic Party would fare far better in 2000 if a President Gore entered the campaign with two years of incumbency to his credit – and considerable distance between himself and the Clinton scandals.
Today, looking back on the disaster of the Bush presidency, I regard Clinton’s failure to resign as one of the most consequential decisions in American history.
Had Clinton resigned, we would – in all probability – be in the ninth year of the Gore administration. American troops would certainly be in Afghanistan. They would almost certainly not be in Iraq, though we might now be doing something about Darfur.
America would be leading the world in seeking alternate energy sources and combating global warming. The Supreme Court would probably remain balanced between its left and right wings. And New Orleans, I sincerely believe, would be far closer to a brilliant renaissance.
In historical hindsight, Democrats, liberals – and all those who have lost loved ones in the Mesopotamian quagmire – have much to regret in Mr. Clinton’s decision to cling to office.
It isn’t hard to imagine Republicans, a decade hence, feeling much the same about their inability to compel the resignation of the disastrous George W. Bush in time to salvage their prospects in 2008.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Why Presidents Can’t Quit, Part One
The death of Gerald Ford has become – as befits our late President – a welcome opportunity for the American people to reflect upon our recent history.
In contrast with the funeral for Ronald Reagan – which was transformed by Hollywood grandiosity, a full-court press by an administration and Congress eager to claim his mantle, and the obsequious timidity of our media into something resembling the deification of a deceased Roman emperor – President Ford’s passing has offered that most useful of occasions, a teachable moment.
To be sure, there has been great emphasis on the positive, which is only natural and proper when burying an honorable man. There has also been a good deal of popular sentimentality about a bygone era which – but for the fact that we Boomers were much younger and slimmer then – hardly merits much nostalgia. But there has also been refreshing candor and some genuine effort at honest appraisal – an attempt to anticipate the long view of history in assessing Mr. Ford’s 2 ½ years in the White House.
Over the past week, I have begun to realize that we may gain a relatively balanced assessment of Mr. Ford’s presidency in our own time – something which will almost certainly not happen with respect to presidents with so many idolators as John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, or so many detractors as Richard Nixon.
Fascinating as I find these proto-historical appraisals of the Ford presidency, though, what keeps intruding into my thoughts is the simple fact that Mr. Ford came to office through the only presidential resignation in our history.
The only one.
And I find myself thinking what a fine thing it would have been had other recent presidents taken advantage of Mr. Nixon’s precedent.
If you think you know where this is going, you’re partly right – but I have a larger point in mind than the fate of the current administration. Especially since the dawn of the 20th century, a number of American presidents have overstayed their welcomes – to the detriment of their historical reputations, our national interests, and their own political parties.
As a student of both American and English history, I have often reflected upon the disadvantages of the American presidency in comparison with the office of Prime Minister. First among these, in my estimation, is the fact that – by the logic of our Constitution – ex-presidents almost never make political comebacks.
To be sure, John Quincy Adams served with distinction in the House of Representatives after losing the presidency to Andrew Jackson. Martin van Buren and Millard Fillmore ran for president as candidates of third parties. And the redoubtable Theodore Roosevelt – having voluntarily left office after two terms – actually came in second as the Bull Moose candidate for president in 1912.
But, with the single exception of Grover Cleveland, no former president has ever regained the White House – a fact which perhaps accounts for the extreme reluctance of presidents to surrender office one hour before they constitutionally must.
Once in office, almost every president – including President Ford – has sought re-election. Once re-elected, every second-term president has clung to power – even Mr. Nixon, who resigned only when his removal became certain.
Even presidents whose administrations have sunk irredeemably into failure, irrelevance, or – in the case of Woodrow Wilson – literal impotence, seem to find resignation unthinkable.
Under parliamentary constitutions, by way of contrast, prime ministers are far less apt to cling to office past the point of absurdity. Assuming that human nature is everywhere much the same, the relative intransigence of American presidents cannot be attributed to some greater degree of arrogance or addiction to power.
Institutional factors cause Presidents to cling to office. The American presidency is, in many ways, an extraordinary office – vested with incredible domestic and international power – but it is also a pinnacle achieved only once. Especially since the enactment of the 22nd Amendment – which forever ends the future prospects of any president elected to a second full term – there seems little incentive for a president to leave office before his time.
In addition to the office itself, however, there is another factor which makes it nearly impossible to persuade a sitting president to step down – the relative weakness of the Republican or Democratic party vis-a-vis an incumbent president who is, among other things, its de facto head.
This has led to a great curiosity in American politics – the fact that a party’s fortunes can suffer more from the re-election of its incumbent president than from his defeat by their rivals. Parties, of course, are institutionally incapable of taking this view, but it is nonetheless worth exploring – if only for the edification of those considering starting a third party which might someday replace one of the two parties presently sharing power in this country.
I will explore these ideas further in a subsequent post.
In contrast with the funeral for Ronald Reagan – which was transformed by Hollywood grandiosity, a full-court press by an administration and Congress eager to claim his mantle, and the obsequious timidity of our media into something resembling the deification of a deceased Roman emperor – President Ford’s passing has offered that most useful of occasions, a teachable moment.
To be sure, there has been great emphasis on the positive, which is only natural and proper when burying an honorable man. There has also been a good deal of popular sentimentality about a bygone era which – but for the fact that we Boomers were much younger and slimmer then – hardly merits much nostalgia. But there has also been refreshing candor and some genuine effort at honest appraisal – an attempt to anticipate the long view of history in assessing Mr. Ford’s 2 ½ years in the White House.
Over the past week, I have begun to realize that we may gain a relatively balanced assessment of Mr. Ford’s presidency in our own time – something which will almost certainly not happen with respect to presidents with so many idolators as John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, or so many detractors as Richard Nixon.
Fascinating as I find these proto-historical appraisals of the Ford presidency, though, what keeps intruding into my thoughts is the simple fact that Mr. Ford came to office through the only presidential resignation in our history.
The only one.
And I find myself thinking what a fine thing it would have been had other recent presidents taken advantage of Mr. Nixon’s precedent.
If you think you know where this is going, you’re partly right – but I have a larger point in mind than the fate of the current administration. Especially since the dawn of the 20th century, a number of American presidents have overstayed their welcomes – to the detriment of their historical reputations, our national interests, and their own political parties.
As a student of both American and English history, I have often reflected upon the disadvantages of the American presidency in comparison with the office of Prime Minister. First among these, in my estimation, is the fact that – by the logic of our Constitution – ex-presidents almost never make political comebacks.
To be sure, John Quincy Adams served with distinction in the House of Representatives after losing the presidency to Andrew Jackson. Martin van Buren and Millard Fillmore ran for president as candidates of third parties. And the redoubtable Theodore Roosevelt – having voluntarily left office after two terms – actually came in second as the Bull Moose candidate for president in 1912.
But, with the single exception of Grover Cleveland, no former president has ever regained the White House – a fact which perhaps accounts for the extreme reluctance of presidents to surrender office one hour before they constitutionally must.
Once in office, almost every president – including President Ford – has sought re-election. Once re-elected, every second-term president has clung to power – even Mr. Nixon, who resigned only when his removal became certain.
Even presidents whose administrations have sunk irredeemably into failure, irrelevance, or – in the case of Woodrow Wilson – literal impotence, seem to find resignation unthinkable.
Under parliamentary constitutions, by way of contrast, prime ministers are far less apt to cling to office past the point of absurdity. Assuming that human nature is everywhere much the same, the relative intransigence of American presidents cannot be attributed to some greater degree of arrogance or addiction to power.
Institutional factors cause Presidents to cling to office. The American presidency is, in many ways, an extraordinary office – vested with incredible domestic and international power – but it is also a pinnacle achieved only once. Especially since the enactment of the 22nd Amendment – which forever ends the future prospects of any president elected to a second full term – there seems little incentive for a president to leave office before his time.
In addition to the office itself, however, there is another factor which makes it nearly impossible to persuade a sitting president to step down – the relative weakness of the Republican or Democratic party vis-a-vis an incumbent president who is, among other things, its de facto head.
This has led to a great curiosity in American politics – the fact that a party’s fortunes can suffer more from the re-election of its incumbent president than from his defeat by their rivals. Parties, of course, are institutionally incapable of taking this view, but it is nonetheless worth exploring – if only for the edification of those considering starting a third party which might someday replace one of the two parties presently sharing power in this country.
I will explore these ideas further in a subsequent post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)