Lately, I've been hearing from disappointed readers of my columns in the Chester Village News - and a few from this page - questioning how an outspoken progressive can dismiss the keen, problem-solving intellect of Hillary Clinton and the remarkable charm and rhetorical talents of Barack Obama to support J0hn McCain.
The answer resides in my admittedly unusual perspective - the product of a lifetime of reading and teaching History. Put simply, I tend to take the long view.
This has not always paid off. As an investor, I'm not always good at holding the stocks which my long-range view leads me to choose. In the public sphere, I often find myself in the precarious position of being well ahead of public opinion - not a good place to be in a democracy.
Still, it's an honest perspective, and I recommend it to the 10% or so of thinking Americans who resist the temptation to obsess over the latest headline - who struggle daily to understand where we are in the long march of History.
So, with that stipulation, my view of the upcoming presidential election is concerned - not with who wins in 2008 - but with who wins in 2012, and thereafter.
After all, the President who takes office 0n Tuesday, January 20, 2009, will confront a heculean task - cleansing the Bushean stables.
America will be, very likely, at the tail end of a recession or in the first months of a tentative recovery. The new President will confront a Federal budget badly out of balance - with many key operations of government sadly underfunded - at a time when raising taxes would be risky.
The new President will confront two long, inconclusive wars - in Iraq and Afghanistan - and a number of long-postponed problems (Pakistan, Sudan, North Korea) with the potential to become military.
The dollar will be low, oil will be high, and - as America will still have done nothing about global warming - the world will be waiting for our lead.
The new President will need to focus on climate change as part of an overall effort to reestablish decent relations with most of the world and to put our intelligence and security operations back on the right side of our own Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and other aspects of international law.
And the new President will face a Congress with very questionable leadership. Under Speaker Pelosi, the House is slowly becoming a functioning body - but the Speaker continues to depend on a handful of conservative Democrats for her majority. The Senate will have a larger Democratic majority - under leadership with a long-standing habit of pusillanimity.
And - election year fantasies to one side - Washington will still be Washington. Interest groups will still ignore the general welfare in favor of their peculiar constituencies. Lobbyists will still far outnumber our elected representatives. Legislation will still require subtle arts and brutal arm-twisting.
In short, the next President will confront an inbox over-flowing with problems left behind - and often created - by one of the most incompetent, secretive, devious, power-hungry Administrations in our history.
He, or she, will have to deal with this enormous backlog - with limited financial resources - at a time when a badly-divided people continue divided. Faced by a challenge so daunting, there will be little time for an inexperienced President to find his feet, pull together a team, and develop a positive agenda - especially if he wants to be re-elected.
Frankly, I don't think it can be done. In my judgement, the next President will be overwhelmed by his challenges - and the impatience of the American people. He will, almost certainly, serve only one term.
Which leads logically to this question: Given a choice between a relatively moderate, very experienced Republican whose positions on the most pressing issues I can live with, and a relatively inexperienced Democrat riding a nascent progressive wave - which gives me the best prospect of a truly progressive president in the more promising - if admittedly hypothetical - conditions of 2013?
As I see it, a Democratic victory in 2008 - followed by a disappointing four years - leads the GOP to return to a hard-right candidate in a winning Election Year 2012.
On the other hand, a McCain victory in 2008 will give us a President competent to handle the worst of Bush's mess and moves the GOP slightly toward the center - while giving time for progressive forces to complete their takeover of the Democratic Party and prepare for a truly progressive administration in 2013.
If this seems entirely too suppositional, I leave you with this question: If you could go back in time and arrange for Al Smith (or some other Democrat) to defeat Herbert Hoover in 1928, would you do it? Would you allow the Democrats to bear the blame for the Crash of '29 - and assure a series of Republican presidents through the Depression and World War II?
I, for one, would not. The crises of depression and war assured 20 years of Democratic rule - and took America a long way down the road toward the successful, liberal-centrist polity of the mid-20th century.
It is only with dread that I imagine America in an all-out war - with the extraordinary wartime powers of government in the hands of mid-20th century conservatives. We might barely have escaped - if at all - some form of homegrown fascism.
So, likewise, I can more readily contemplate a one-term President McCain (2009 - 2013) than a President Huckabee, Santorum, or Jeb Bush taking the oath of office on January 20, 2013.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
How McCain Can Win
John McCain may be the best-qualified candidate remaining in the presidential field, but as Obamania sweeps the campuses, the cities, and the more liberal suburbs, it's starting to seem that he faces a daunting challenge putting together the necessary 271 electoral votes.
Strategic suggestions abound, but many of them are hopelessly out-of-date in the changed context of 2008.
For example, McCain can't simply cozy up to the conservative base that elected George W. Bush, because that base has been decimated - and more than decimated - by the most incompetent Administration since James Buchanan. Even if the base were willing to be wooed, everything MCain did to please them would alienate critical moderates.
Nor can McCain negative on Obama, because - let's face it - the national media have fallen in love with the gentleman from Illinois. And because, frankly, attacking a black candidate is too easy to label as bigotry in an America still coming to terms with issues of race.
Nor can MCain counter Obama's lock on the black vote with an appeal to the Hispanic community because the Republican Party has painted itself into an absurd corner with its abuse of rational immigration reform as "amnesty".
Moreover, Senator Obama is incredibly articulate - and his calls for national unity and a new beginning can stir even the most jaded to at least temporary enthusiasm.
Let's assume, for the moment, that Obama has no serious skeletons in his closet - an uncertain assumption for any politician emerging from the Illinois Democratic machine. If that is the case, McCain's likely opponent has only one weakness - a weakness any high school debater would spot immediately.
He never deals with the costs. Obama promises a virtual cornucopia, but he never talks about who will bear the burden. His "Yes, We Can" is, upon examination, as illusory as the rising prices of last year's real estate market.
But how can McCain make this point?
Not, I think, in the manner which has proven so ineffective for Senator Clinton. Americans are not in a rational mood this year, so an appeal to rational cost-benefit analysis will scarcely move them.
What McCain must do is offer an equally inspiring agenda - but one which calls for sacrifice.
Think of it.
Suppose McCain begins by revisiting his vote against the Bush tax cuts, pointing out that his rationale was one of shared sacrifice. Suppose he reminds voters of his "tough talk" in the Michigan primary. Suppose that he goes on to throw a challenge in the teeth of Grover Norquist and the other anti-tax vermin, confessing that the Republican Party's failure of leadership has stemmed from its willingness to borrow and spend, rather than to bear the present burdens of present benefits.
Suppose McCain were to borrow a page from JFK's inaugural address and offer a program of real sacrifice.
As long as our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans must share the burden by paying - not borrowing - the costs of the war.
As long as America is addicted to foreign oil, we must use a creative tax formula - perhaps a per gallon fuel tax, with an exemption for the first 30 gallons purchased by an individual driver each month.
As long as global warming is a threat, a bold program of lifestyle-altering programs will be enacted to make America the world's leader in reducing carbon emissions.
And long as some young Americans bear the price of keeping us safe, all young Americans will be required to participate in a serious National Service program - eighteen months of active military duty, followed by time in the reserves, or thirty months of approved civilian service - to be completed before age 25.
Such a strategy would be risky, but it has three great advantages. First, it suits the personality and personal history of John McCain - a patriot and hero who bears in his flesh the scars of the personal price he has paid for his country.
Second, it would have the effect of throwing into profound contrast the cost-free utopianism behind Obama's candidacy.
Third, it would challenge the core of Obama's support - privileged, educated young people - to ante up with something more than words.
Which might, indeed, alienate America's entitled generation, of course. But then, Senator McCain has precious few votes to lose among this demographic - and many to gain among older Americans who understand that all good things come with a price.
Strategic suggestions abound, but many of them are hopelessly out-of-date in the changed context of 2008.
For example, McCain can't simply cozy up to the conservative base that elected George W. Bush, because that base has been decimated - and more than decimated - by the most incompetent Administration since James Buchanan. Even if the base were willing to be wooed, everything MCain did to please them would alienate critical moderates.
Nor can McCain negative on Obama, because - let's face it - the national media have fallen in love with the gentleman from Illinois. And because, frankly, attacking a black candidate is too easy to label as bigotry in an America still coming to terms with issues of race.
Nor can MCain counter Obama's lock on the black vote with an appeal to the Hispanic community because the Republican Party has painted itself into an absurd corner with its abuse of rational immigration reform as "amnesty".
Moreover, Senator Obama is incredibly articulate - and his calls for national unity and a new beginning can stir even the most jaded to at least temporary enthusiasm.
Let's assume, for the moment, that Obama has no serious skeletons in his closet - an uncertain assumption for any politician emerging from the Illinois Democratic machine. If that is the case, McCain's likely opponent has only one weakness - a weakness any high school debater would spot immediately.
He never deals with the costs. Obama promises a virtual cornucopia, but he never talks about who will bear the burden. His "Yes, We Can" is, upon examination, as illusory as the rising prices of last year's real estate market.
But how can McCain make this point?
Not, I think, in the manner which has proven so ineffective for Senator Clinton. Americans are not in a rational mood this year, so an appeal to rational cost-benefit analysis will scarcely move them.
What McCain must do is offer an equally inspiring agenda - but one which calls for sacrifice.
Think of it.
Suppose McCain begins by revisiting his vote against the Bush tax cuts, pointing out that his rationale was one of shared sacrifice. Suppose he reminds voters of his "tough talk" in the Michigan primary. Suppose that he goes on to throw a challenge in the teeth of Grover Norquist and the other anti-tax vermin, confessing that the Republican Party's failure of leadership has stemmed from its willingness to borrow and spend, rather than to bear the present burdens of present benefits.
Suppose McCain were to borrow a page from JFK's inaugural address and offer a program of real sacrifice.
As long as our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans must share the burden by paying - not borrowing - the costs of the war.
As long as America is addicted to foreign oil, we must use a creative tax formula - perhaps a per gallon fuel tax, with an exemption for the first 30 gallons purchased by an individual driver each month.
As long as global warming is a threat, a bold program of lifestyle-altering programs will be enacted to make America the world's leader in reducing carbon emissions.
And long as some young Americans bear the price of keeping us safe, all young Americans will be required to participate in a serious National Service program - eighteen months of active military duty, followed by time in the reserves, or thirty months of approved civilian service - to be completed before age 25.
Such a strategy would be risky, but it has three great advantages. First, it suits the personality and personal history of John McCain - a patriot and hero who bears in his flesh the scars of the personal price he has paid for his country.
Second, it would have the effect of throwing into profound contrast the cost-free utopianism behind Obama's candidacy.
Third, it would challenge the core of Obama's support - privileged, educated young people - to ante up with something more than words.
Which might, indeed, alienate America's entitled generation, of course. But then, Senator McCain has precious few votes to lose among this demographic - and many to gain among older Americans who understand that all good things come with a price.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)