In the final scene of Shakespeare's The Tempest, Miranda - upon meeting a number of gallant Milanese and Neapolitans - exclaims, "O, brave new world, that has such people in it!"
Her father, far older and more worldly-wise, replies, "'Tis new to thee."
Well, Miranda, you've done it again.
The American people - suffering from a chronic short-term memory deficit - have once again elected an inexperienced but appealing young Democrat to "change the way Washington does business".
As they did, with such indifferent results, in 1990, 1976, and 1960. It's a fairly reliable pattern, pointed out to me by my friend Adam Sharp. Every sixteen years since the era of black-and-white TV, the Democrats have offered up an appealing outsider and the citizenry - having had their fill of Republican government for the nonce - fall for him.
They vote for change, and they get a Democrat.
Two weeks into the Obama transition, it looks like we've got another, typical Democratic administration.
The mainstream media, having done their dead-level best to elect Senator Obama, are still congratulating us for our wisdom in following their lead.
But already, if you care to look, you can see the signs.
Rahm Emanuel, of the Clinton West Wing, for Chief of Staff. Eric Holder, Janet Reno's deputy, at Justice. Tom Daschle at HHS.
And abundant talk of Hillary at Foggy Bottom, if Bill will agree to curb his activities.
The media would have us believe that Obama is following the example of Abraham Lincoln, as portrayed in Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals - and so he may be.
But Lincoln was, for all his ambition, a profoundly humble man - a quality which not even the most fervid Obamaniacs attribute to their leader.
Moreover, Lincoln, the leader of a very new party confronted with a unique emergency, needed the advice and support of his erstwhile rivals to solve the secession crisis.
What Obama is doing feels different. It feels like a power-play - an effort to assert his control over the entire Democratic Party by co-opting the Clintonites, bringing aboard men who have held powerful leadership positions in the House and Senate, and adopting a mainstream Democratic agenda.
So far, this is only a feeling with me. I didn't vote for Senator Obama, but I believe any patriotic American would have to wish him well, given the present state of the nation.
Still, I have the strongest suspicion that - having bought a pig in a poke - we're about to learn that we have actually elected a very ruthless politician, with a Chicago ward-healer's approach to party discipline.
The two chief clues are these:
Rahm Emanuel is what Leo McGarry would describe as a "war-time consigliere". He's not the guy you bring aboard if you're going to take the collegial, team of rivals approach. He's the guy you bring in to enforce gleichschaltung on a notoriously unruly party.
And the proposed bail-out of Detroit's Big Three isn't the first policy initiative of a change agent - much less a defender of the environment or free trade. It's a big-spending, union-friendly, and enormously protectionist measure to satisfy powerful interests within the Democratic coalition - free trade and global warming be damned.
This blog has been on a lengthy hiatus while I watched in fascinated horror as the American people - including most of my friends - fell in love with Senator Obama.
I hope I'm reading the signs wrongly, but I have promised my friends that I reserve the right to say "I told you so!" - loudly and often - if their wunderkind turns out to be another Clinton, or Carter, or JFK.
I just hope that's the worst he turns out to be...
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
McCain’s Winning Strategy
Last year, re-reading The Best and the Brightest, David Halberstam’s magnificent history of the Vietnam War, I encountered a passage which has since haunted me. Writing of President Kennedy in June, 1963, Halberstam reflects:
"It was as if he were liberated from the insecurities of his first two years with that one act [the Cuban missile crisis], and now, more confident of himself, more confident of the nation’s response to him; he was the President." [Emphasis added.]
Having grown up with the Camelot myth, it took some reflection before I could embrace Halberstam’s hard-headed assessment – that, for all his charisma, style and self-confidence, JFK had only begun to reach his potential when his presidency was brutally cut short.
But this reflection, more than anything, has led me to conclude that – despite significant differences of policy and philosophy – I must vote for John McCain this November. Simply stated, I fear that Barack Obama would prove another JFK – requiring at least half his term to become, effectively, President.
And, right now – in a dangerous world – we can’t afford that.
Mine is not a romantic outlook. My goals are decidedly progressive, but, as a student of history, I don’t believe charisma is a substitute for experience. Nor do I see Congressional Democrats – under untested leadership and shaky after eight years of knuckling under to President Bush – as prepared to govern without a steady hand in the Oval Office.
That said, I could be far more enthusiastic about John McCain if he used his candidacy to move the Republican Party toward the center – and not just as a matter of short-term campaign strategy.
For almost three decades now, Americans have been misgoverned by an entrenched, two-party system consisting of a party of bigotry, ignorance, greed, chauvinism, and superstition and a party of mere opportunism, with no principles beyond a desire to win the next election.
McCain can’t reform the Democrats, but – win or lose – he could use his campaign to move his party back toward the “big tent” which offered full participation to moderate and even liberal Republicans.
And, in my judgment, such a move would be McCain’s best chance for victory.
For this much is certain: If McCain continues wooing his party’s reluctant conservatives into the fall, he won’t be President. His winning strategy – which is also, I believe, America’s best hope – involves greater boldness and vision.
If McCain wants to win, he must embrace three realities:
First, while most Americans respect him, not many are excited about him. He has yet to energize a substantial group of citizens to counter the legions who have fallen under the spell of his charismatic opponent.
And this matters.
The election of 2008 won’t be won by eking out 270 electoral votes with a carefully crafted, swing-state strategy. It will be won by capturing the heart of America.
Second, McCain must address the age question. Few doubt his present vitality and fitness for the presidency, but the Oval Office exacts an enormous price from most occupants. McCain can certainly serve one four-year term, but it’s fair to assume he might not opt to seek re-election.
Thus, his choice of Vice-President – and his ability to elevate other potential successors – will be of particular importance, not only to his candidacy, but to the future direction of his party.
Third, McCain simply must address the challenge at the heart of Obama’s strategy – which is the suggestion that McCain’s election would, in effect, prove a third term for George W. Bush.
It’s really the only good argument Obama has – and McCain must meet it head-on.
In addressing these three realities, McCain should begin by reading one book – Christine Todd Whitman’s It’s My Party, Too – a moderate Republican’s appeal to restore the Republican “big tent” which social conservatives have worked so sedulously to destroy.
It’s a short book – McCain could skim during a single transcontinental flight.
He should read it – and then offer its author the second slot on his ticket.
He couldn’t do better.
Christie Whitman served seven years as Governor of New Jersey – constitutionally, the most powerful chief executive in the fifty states. She went on to head the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bush – resigning when her sincere environmentalism ran afoul of the administration’s pro-corporate agenda.
Offering the Vice-Presidency to Governor Whitman would accomplish many things.
First, given her history with the Bush Administration, it would clearly signal that McCain’s administration would be no “third term”.
Second, choosing a running mate of clear presidential caliber would effectively blunt the age question.
Third, a Whitman candidacy would electrify two significant groups: Moderate-to-liberal Republicans, marginalized since the Reagan Revolution of 1980; and millions of women still unhappy with Hillary Clinton’s treatment at the hands of the Democratic establishment and the mainstream media.
Finally, a McCain-Whitman ticket would scramble the electoral contest in interesting ways.
1. New Jersey’s 15 electoral votes would come into play.
2. Whitman would help in the eastern half of vital Pennsylvania, among New England’s moderate Republicans, and with the “snowbirds” of Florida.
3. Looking beyond McCain’s presidency, Whitman – as a potential future candidate -- would offer the prospect of moving the Republican Party back toward inclusiveness.
But if putting on the ticket would energize moderate and liberal Republicans, McCain could go further in this direction by elevating a second prospective successor – America’s leading Republican moderate.
The day after the Democratic convention, McCain should fly to Sacramento and - standing next to California's governor - announce that his first legislative proposal to the 111th Congress will be a Constitutional amendment removing the bar to naturalized citizens serving as President.
With this announcement, McCain would claim the respectful attention of every immigrant group in America. He would also put Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California– with its 55 electoral votes – seriously into play.
These two steps – nominating Christie Whitman for Vice-President and proposing an amendment opening the Presidency to naturalized citizens – would hardly suffice to win McCain the White House.
But, by energizing millions of voters, quashing talk of a third term for the Bush administration, and moving the Republican Party back toward the American mainstream – it would considerably level the playing field.
"It was as if he were liberated from the insecurities of his first two years with that one act [the Cuban missile crisis], and now, more confident of himself, more confident of the nation’s response to him; he was the President." [Emphasis added.]
Having grown up with the Camelot myth, it took some reflection before I could embrace Halberstam’s hard-headed assessment – that, for all his charisma, style and self-confidence, JFK had only begun to reach his potential when his presidency was brutally cut short.
But this reflection, more than anything, has led me to conclude that – despite significant differences of policy and philosophy – I must vote for John McCain this November. Simply stated, I fear that Barack Obama would prove another JFK – requiring at least half his term to become, effectively, President.
And, right now – in a dangerous world – we can’t afford that.
Mine is not a romantic outlook. My goals are decidedly progressive, but, as a student of history, I don’t believe charisma is a substitute for experience. Nor do I see Congressional Democrats – under untested leadership and shaky after eight years of knuckling under to President Bush – as prepared to govern without a steady hand in the Oval Office.
That said, I could be far more enthusiastic about John McCain if he used his candidacy to move the Republican Party toward the center – and not just as a matter of short-term campaign strategy.
For almost three decades now, Americans have been misgoverned by an entrenched, two-party system consisting of a party of bigotry, ignorance, greed, chauvinism, and superstition and a party of mere opportunism, with no principles beyond a desire to win the next election.
McCain can’t reform the Democrats, but – win or lose – he could use his campaign to move his party back toward the “big tent” which offered full participation to moderate and even liberal Republicans.
And, in my judgment, such a move would be McCain’s best chance for victory.
For this much is certain: If McCain continues wooing his party’s reluctant conservatives into the fall, he won’t be President. His winning strategy – which is also, I believe, America’s best hope – involves greater boldness and vision.
If McCain wants to win, he must embrace three realities:
First, while most Americans respect him, not many are excited about him. He has yet to energize a substantial group of citizens to counter the legions who have fallen under the spell of his charismatic opponent.
And this matters.
The election of 2008 won’t be won by eking out 270 electoral votes with a carefully crafted, swing-state strategy. It will be won by capturing the heart of America.
Second, McCain must address the age question. Few doubt his present vitality and fitness for the presidency, but the Oval Office exacts an enormous price from most occupants. McCain can certainly serve one four-year term, but it’s fair to assume he might not opt to seek re-election.
Thus, his choice of Vice-President – and his ability to elevate other potential successors – will be of particular importance, not only to his candidacy, but to the future direction of his party.
Third, McCain simply must address the challenge at the heart of Obama’s strategy – which is the suggestion that McCain’s election would, in effect, prove a third term for George W. Bush.
It’s really the only good argument Obama has – and McCain must meet it head-on.
In addressing these three realities, McCain should begin by reading one book – Christine Todd Whitman’s It’s My Party, Too – a moderate Republican’s appeal to restore the Republican “big tent” which social conservatives have worked so sedulously to destroy.
It’s a short book – McCain could skim during a single transcontinental flight.
He should read it – and then offer its author the second slot on his ticket.
He couldn’t do better.
Christie Whitman served seven years as Governor of New Jersey – constitutionally, the most powerful chief executive in the fifty states. She went on to head the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bush – resigning when her sincere environmentalism ran afoul of the administration’s pro-corporate agenda.
Offering the Vice-Presidency to Governor Whitman would accomplish many things.
First, given her history with the Bush Administration, it would clearly signal that McCain’s administration would be no “third term”.
Second, choosing a running mate of clear presidential caliber would effectively blunt the age question.
Third, a Whitman candidacy would electrify two significant groups: Moderate-to-liberal Republicans, marginalized since the Reagan Revolution of 1980; and millions of women still unhappy with Hillary Clinton’s treatment at the hands of the Democratic establishment and the mainstream media.
Finally, a McCain-Whitman ticket would scramble the electoral contest in interesting ways.
1. New Jersey’s 15 electoral votes would come into play.
2. Whitman would help in the eastern half of vital Pennsylvania, among New England’s moderate Republicans, and with the “snowbirds” of Florida.
3. Looking beyond McCain’s presidency, Whitman – as a potential future candidate -- would offer the prospect of moving the Republican Party back toward inclusiveness.
But if putting on the ticket would energize moderate and liberal Republicans, McCain could go further in this direction by elevating a second prospective successor – America’s leading Republican moderate.
The day after the Democratic convention, McCain should fly to Sacramento and - standing next to California's governor - announce that his first legislative proposal to the 111th Congress will be a Constitutional amendment removing the bar to naturalized citizens serving as President.
With this announcement, McCain would claim the respectful attention of every immigrant group in America. He would also put Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California– with its 55 electoral votes – seriously into play.
These two steps – nominating Christie Whitman for Vice-President and proposing an amendment opening the Presidency to naturalized citizens – would hardly suffice to win McCain the White House.
But, by energizing millions of voters, quashing talk of a third term for the Bush administration, and moving the Republican Party back toward the American mainstream – it would considerably level the playing field.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Other Than Mr. Spitzer...
Governor Eliot Spitzer's icarian plunge has been all the news this week, but it has never been my object to belabor the obvious.
The other prominent politician who should be kicking himself these days is John Edwards, whose precipitate departure from the Democratic race looks more foolish with each primary or caucus.
Granted, Mr. Edwards was no match for the celebrity of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - but could no one in his camp have foreseen the possibility of a deadlocked convention?
I did not publish to this effect - which will affect my credibility with some - but I recall telling friends in late 2007 that the front-loading of the primary season would very likely lead to at least one party choosing its nominee the old-fashioned way. It seemed to me obvious that - with the mechanism of momentum-building removed from the picture - no candidate would be likely to secure a majority of delegates in advance.
Sadly, no campaign - other than Mayor Giuliani's - foresaw this possibility. And because he was alone in this, he failed.
But imagine another scenario. Imagine that Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul all announced - at the outset - that they intended to focus on the states where they had the best shot at winning delegates. Had they done so - putting their time and money where it would do the most good - they might all still be in the race.
This argument has even more force on the Democratic side. Had the lesser-known candidates all adopted a strategy of campaigning only where they were strongest - plainly advertising their intention of going to the convention with a pocketful of delegates awarded by proportional representation - not even a unanimity of super-delegates could have forced a decision before Denver.
Indeed, with his strength among working-class whites, John Edwards could easily have made it to Denver with between 10% and 15% of the delegates. Suppose that, instead of ending his campaign, Edwards had said:
"It is now obvious that I am not going to be the first choice of the majority of Democrats. But I hope to demonstrate, in time, that I am the second choice of most Democrats - and perhaps, come Denver, the final choice of my party. Thus, I will continue my campaign - scaling down to accommodate my limited funds, and focusing on states where I can win the most delegates. I will pursue the strategy Abraham Lincoln pursued in 1860, campaigning so as to earn the respect of all Democrats - and, should the convention deadlock, offering myself as a legitimate, tested alternative to the two front-runners."
Had Mr. Edwards offered himself on this basis, he might now be the beneficiary of many votes from Democrats and independents who are having second thoughts about Senator Obama, but who remain reluctant to endorse Senator Clinton. He might be in a position to help the party leadership avoid a head-to-head bloodbath in Denver.
And he might - just might - have wound up in the White House.
The other prominent politician who should be kicking himself these days is John Edwards, whose precipitate departure from the Democratic race looks more foolish with each primary or caucus.
Granted, Mr. Edwards was no match for the celebrity of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - but could no one in his camp have foreseen the possibility of a deadlocked convention?
I did not publish to this effect - which will affect my credibility with some - but I recall telling friends in late 2007 that the front-loading of the primary season would very likely lead to at least one party choosing its nominee the old-fashioned way. It seemed to me obvious that - with the mechanism of momentum-building removed from the picture - no candidate would be likely to secure a majority of delegates in advance.
Sadly, no campaign - other than Mayor Giuliani's - foresaw this possibility. And because he was alone in this, he failed.
But imagine another scenario. Imagine that Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul all announced - at the outset - that they intended to focus on the states where they had the best shot at winning delegates. Had they done so - putting their time and money where it would do the most good - they might all still be in the race.
This argument has even more force on the Democratic side. Had the lesser-known candidates all adopted a strategy of campaigning only where they were strongest - plainly advertising their intention of going to the convention with a pocketful of delegates awarded by proportional representation - not even a unanimity of super-delegates could have forced a decision before Denver.
Indeed, with his strength among working-class whites, John Edwards could easily have made it to Denver with between 10% and 15% of the delegates. Suppose that, instead of ending his campaign, Edwards had said:
"It is now obvious that I am not going to be the first choice of the majority of Democrats. But I hope to demonstrate, in time, that I am the second choice of most Democrats - and perhaps, come Denver, the final choice of my party. Thus, I will continue my campaign - scaling down to accommodate my limited funds, and focusing on states where I can win the most delegates. I will pursue the strategy Abraham Lincoln pursued in 1860, campaigning so as to earn the respect of all Democrats - and, should the convention deadlock, offering myself as a legitimate, tested alternative to the two front-runners."
Had Mr. Edwards offered himself on this basis, he might now be the beneficiary of many votes from Democrats and independents who are having second thoughts about Senator Obama, but who remain reluctant to endorse Senator Clinton. He might be in a position to help the party leadership avoid a head-to-head bloodbath in Denver.
And he might - just might - have wound up in the White House.
-30-
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
It's All About 2012.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Watch This...
Things are moving quickly on primary front. The rallying of the Kennedy clan behind Barack Obama may be only the first salvo of a series of blue-ribbon endorsements intended to sweep the Illinois Senator to victory on Super Tuesday.
Here's the tipoff: The Party leadership's choice of Governor Kathleen Sibelius to respond to the President's final State of the Union address.
You have to assume that large segments of the Democratic Party - even within the Beltway - are restless with the notion of returning the Clintons to the White House.
And even more unnerved by the prospect of following the Clintons to defeat in November.
Senator Clinton continues to generate high negatives in the polls, and her husband - thanks to his suddenly-public temper and recourse to racial politics - is rapidly gaining on her. These factors alone would not be sufficient to cause Democratic insiders to desert the Clinton banners, but there is more.
The GOP, against all odds, is beginning to rally behind the one candidate who could actually win in November - Senator John McCain. It's too soon to be certain. Movement conservatives - following the lead of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the AM radio tribunes - might yet tempt Republican regulars into an act of mass self-immolation.
But McCain has a hidden asset. Unusual among US Senators, he has a gift for forming genuine personal friendships. This shows in such things as the loyalty of fellow Senator Lindsay Graham - and in the curiously cordial relations between the McCain and Huckabee campaigns. Fred Thompson - who is yet to endorse a rival - is reported to harbor feelings of genuine friendship for McCain.
Combine this with the fact that virtually all of the Republican field actively loathes Romney, and it looks possible that Republican insiders - led by McCain's fellow Senators and fading rivals - may likewise rally to a champion with a real chance of becoming President.
This has to worry Democrats. In too many scenarios, McCain whips Clinton in the general election.
But Obama might be another story.
Which brings us back to Governor Sibelius. If, as I begin to suspect, Capitol Hill Democrats are slowly lining up behind Obama, there is one segment of the Democratic coalition which will have to be conciliated - white women over 50, the core of the Clinton base.
How better to do this than to nominate an articulate, pragmatic, rising star like Governor Sibelius - a moderate from the red-state heartland - as Obama's running mate?
I'm going out on a limb here, but if Florida comes in for John McCain - and does enough damage to Rudy Guiliani - it's going to start looking a lot like the tide has turned in McCain's favor.
And if that happens, expect to see a host of big-name Democrats beginning to endorse Senator Obama - a few names every day from now until Super Duper Tuesday.
And that could do it.
So watch this: Obama becomes the consensus choice of the Democratic Party leadership. Sibelius begins to be seriously discussed as his running mate.
And the GOP - unwilling to cede the enormous, wealthy demographic of over-50 white women - starts looking for someone like New Jersey's moderate, pro-environment Christine Todd Whitman as a running mate for Senator McCain.
Here's the tipoff: The Party leadership's choice of Governor Kathleen Sibelius to respond to the President's final State of the Union address.
You have to assume that large segments of the Democratic Party - even within the Beltway - are restless with the notion of returning the Clintons to the White House.
And even more unnerved by the prospect of following the Clintons to defeat in November.
Senator Clinton continues to generate high negatives in the polls, and her husband - thanks to his suddenly-public temper and recourse to racial politics - is rapidly gaining on her. These factors alone would not be sufficient to cause Democratic insiders to desert the Clinton banners, but there is more.
The GOP, against all odds, is beginning to rally behind the one candidate who could actually win in November - Senator John McCain. It's too soon to be certain. Movement conservatives - following the lead of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the AM radio tribunes - might yet tempt Republican regulars into an act of mass self-immolation.
But McCain has a hidden asset. Unusual among US Senators, he has a gift for forming genuine personal friendships. This shows in such things as the loyalty of fellow Senator Lindsay Graham - and in the curiously cordial relations between the McCain and Huckabee campaigns. Fred Thompson - who is yet to endorse a rival - is reported to harbor feelings of genuine friendship for McCain.
Combine this with the fact that virtually all of the Republican field actively loathes Romney, and it looks possible that Republican insiders - led by McCain's fellow Senators and fading rivals - may likewise rally to a champion with a real chance of becoming President.
This has to worry Democrats. In too many scenarios, McCain whips Clinton in the general election.
But Obama might be another story.
Which brings us back to Governor Sibelius. If, as I begin to suspect, Capitol Hill Democrats are slowly lining up behind Obama, there is one segment of the Democratic coalition which will have to be conciliated - white women over 50, the core of the Clinton base.
How better to do this than to nominate an articulate, pragmatic, rising star like Governor Sibelius - a moderate from the red-state heartland - as Obama's running mate?
I'm going out on a limb here, but if Florida comes in for John McCain - and does enough damage to Rudy Guiliani - it's going to start looking a lot like the tide has turned in McCain's favor.
And if that happens, expect to see a host of big-name Democrats beginning to endorse Senator Obama - a few names every day from now until Super Duper Tuesday.
And that could do it.
So watch this: Obama becomes the consensus choice of the Democratic Party leadership. Sibelius begins to be seriously discussed as his running mate.
And the GOP - unwilling to cede the enormous, wealthy demographic of over-50 white women - starts looking for someone like New Jersey's moderate, pro-environment Christine Todd Whitman as a running mate for Senator McCain.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Case for John McCain.
A good friend picked up my last post for his blog, but headlined it in such a way as to suggest that I am still supporting John Edwards.
Sadly, that ship has sailed.
While I hope John Edwards will adopt a second-choice, convention-oriented strategy - that would require him to break with the entire tendency conduct of his campaign so far, i.e., he'd have to do something strategically intelligent.
As a potential president, I really like John Edwards. As a candidate, though, he seems to have caught something chronic from John Kerry.
Actually, the decision I've reached - and it surprised me, too - is that the best thing for the progressive movement is for the Democratic Party to nominate Hillary and go down in flames to John McCain.
I'm not sure the Democratic Party can ever be reformed, but the present Hillary-Obama brawl is basically a war of old-line insiders: the Clinton/DLC machine, minus some of their black supporters vs. the Illinois Democratic machine, plus most of the black Democratic pols. Whoever wins this fight, it isn't going to be the folks who rallied to Howard Dean!
What needs to happen is for the Democratic Party to get so shockingly upset - for President, not Congress - that it either becomes open to reform, or begins to die and make room for a new party (or some entity to replace a party) on the Left.
Which leads me to the conclusion that - assuming Edwards continues to blunder toward extinction - what progressives should do is cross over and support McCain.
At 73 (on January 20, 2009), McCain would almost certainly be a one-term President - and a President eminently qualified to deal with the nastiest parts of the Bush legacy: the mess in Mesopotamia; the flagrant disregard of the Constitution and Geneva in the name of "national security"; and America's failure to take the lead on the environment.
Indeed, as a Republican - assuming the next Senate doesn't have 60 Democrats (exclusive of old Joe) - McCain would probably have more success wrapping these things up than any Democrat.
Besides, between the Bush deficits and the incoming recession, there won't be a lot of money for things like health care in the next four years. It's going to be a "lost" administration in terms of truly progressive legislation.
So I say, let McCain clean up Bush's mess - and elect a staunchly progressive Congress to keep him from doing anything dreadful. It would give McCain the sweetest kind of revenge for 2000 - reversing much of Bush's policy, and moving the GOP toward the center.
And it would give us time to find an outstanding, progressive candidate (Democrat or otherwise) for 2012.
Sadly, that ship has sailed.
While I hope John Edwards will adopt a second-choice, convention-oriented strategy - that would require him to break with the entire tendency conduct of his campaign so far, i.e., he'd have to do something strategically intelligent.
As a potential president, I really like John Edwards. As a candidate, though, he seems to have caught something chronic from John Kerry.
Actually, the decision I've reached - and it surprised me, too - is that the best thing for the progressive movement is for the Democratic Party to nominate Hillary and go down in flames to John McCain.
I'm not sure the Democratic Party can ever be reformed, but the present Hillary-Obama brawl is basically a war of old-line insiders: the Clinton/DLC machine, minus some of their black supporters vs. the Illinois Democratic machine, plus most of the black Democratic pols. Whoever wins this fight, it isn't going to be the folks who rallied to Howard Dean!
What needs to happen is for the Democratic Party to get so shockingly upset - for President, not Congress - that it either becomes open to reform, or begins to die and make room for a new party (or some entity to replace a party) on the Left.
Which leads me to the conclusion that - assuming Edwards continues to blunder toward extinction - what progressives should do is cross over and support McCain.
At 73 (on January 20, 2009), McCain would almost certainly be a one-term President - and a President eminently qualified to deal with the nastiest parts of the Bush legacy: the mess in Mesopotamia; the flagrant disregard of the Constitution and Geneva in the name of "national security"; and America's failure to take the lead on the environment.
Indeed, as a Republican - assuming the next Senate doesn't have 60 Democrats (exclusive of old Joe) - McCain would probably have more success wrapping these things up than any Democrat.
Besides, between the Bush deficits and the incoming recession, there won't be a lot of money for things like health care in the next four years. It's going to be a "lost" administration in terms of truly progressive legislation.
So I say, let McCain clean up Bush's mess - and elect a staunchly progressive Congress to keep him from doing anything dreadful. It would give McCain the sweetest kind of revenge for 2000 - reversing much of Bush's policy, and moving the GOP toward the center.
And it would give us time to find an outstanding, progressive candidate (Democrat or otherwise) for 2012.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Thinking Long-Term
As the primaries and caucuses continue winnowing the field for 2008, I've reluctantly - but not that reluctantly - reached a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of many eager Democrats.
2008 isn't going to be a Democratic year - and that could be a very good thing.
To begin with, I'm increasingly convinced that - for all the excitement generated by the first credible Black candidate for president, and the first credible female candidate for president - the Democratic field is fatally flawed.
There is, of course, the obvious fact that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a resume which inspires confidence. Neither has any serious administrative or foreign policy experience. Neither has an impressive legislative record - particularly in critical areas such as budget and finance. Thus far, the Democrats seem to be eliminating candidates in reverse order of qualification - a trend which could, if followed to its logical conclusion - result in the nomination of Mike Gravel.
More disturbing, however, is the emerging appearance of troubling character flaws in the two leading Democratic candidates. Since New Hampshire, each has shown an increasing tendency toward petulance - as though each believed himself or herself somehow entitled to the party's nomination. The Clintons - both of them - have stepped up their attacks on Obama. In response, Obama has played the race card.
And away we go!
This should not, of course, be that surprising. The Democratic Party has long been more of a coalition of interest groups than a party devoted to something like principled governance. Given that fact - and the fact that two of the largest Democratic constituencies are African-Americans and Boomer generation feminists - it was almost inevitable that things would get intense between two campaigns with strategies rooted in identity politics.
But with Obama playing the race card against the Clintons - long great favorites with African-American voters - the Democratic nomination fight is teetering on the brink of unprecedented nastiness. Someone will win, of course - but whoever does seems destined to do so at the cost of alienating a large chunk of the Democratic base.
How sad that John Edwards - whose third-place campaign could only benefit from staying "above the battle" - seems determined to get down in the muck with the others.
In addition to the emerging flaws of the two principal contenders, it's beginning to look more and more like the next President will be saddled with three enormous problems: a recession; Iraq; and President Bush's legacy of deficit spending, administrative incompetence, and executive overreach.
However those of us who consider ourselves liberals and/or progressives may want an activist administration to tackle challenges such as health care, global warming and improved education, it seems increasingly clear that the President elected in 2008 will spend most of his or her term cleaning up Mr. Bush's mess.
And on a rather straitened budget.
In other words, as I have suggested before, progressives might actually be better off voting for a respectable Republican in 2008 - if there is one; and focusing on nominating and electing good candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives this year; and start working on electing a competent, experienced liberal/progressive President in 2012.
At least, that's what I've come to. The next President will have to spend four years cleaning up after Mr. Bush - certainly one of the worse presidents in American history. It's a thankless job, and whoever gets it will have a hard time winning re-election.
So, are progressives better off winning in 2008 - putting an inexperienced, budget-strapped, and damaged Democrat in the White House? Or surrounding a moderate-conservative Republican with strong Democratic congressional majorities - and thinking long-term?
2008 isn't going to be a Democratic year - and that could be a very good thing.
To begin with, I'm increasingly convinced that - for all the excitement generated by the first credible Black candidate for president, and the first credible female candidate for president - the Democratic field is fatally flawed.
There is, of course, the obvious fact that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a resume which inspires confidence. Neither has any serious administrative or foreign policy experience. Neither has an impressive legislative record - particularly in critical areas such as budget and finance. Thus far, the Democrats seem to be eliminating candidates in reverse order of qualification - a trend which could, if followed to its logical conclusion - result in the nomination of Mike Gravel.
More disturbing, however, is the emerging appearance of troubling character flaws in the two leading Democratic candidates. Since New Hampshire, each has shown an increasing tendency toward petulance - as though each believed himself or herself somehow entitled to the party's nomination. The Clintons - both of them - have stepped up their attacks on Obama. In response, Obama has played the race card.
And away we go!
This should not, of course, be that surprising. The Democratic Party has long been more of a coalition of interest groups than a party devoted to something like principled governance. Given that fact - and the fact that two of the largest Democratic constituencies are African-Americans and Boomer generation feminists - it was almost inevitable that things would get intense between two campaigns with strategies rooted in identity politics.
But with Obama playing the race card against the Clintons - long great favorites with African-American voters - the Democratic nomination fight is teetering on the brink of unprecedented nastiness. Someone will win, of course - but whoever does seems destined to do so at the cost of alienating a large chunk of the Democratic base.
How sad that John Edwards - whose third-place campaign could only benefit from staying "above the battle" - seems determined to get down in the muck with the others.
In addition to the emerging flaws of the two principal contenders, it's beginning to look more and more like the next President will be saddled with three enormous problems: a recession; Iraq; and President Bush's legacy of deficit spending, administrative incompetence, and executive overreach.
However those of us who consider ourselves liberals and/or progressives may want an activist administration to tackle challenges such as health care, global warming and improved education, it seems increasingly clear that the President elected in 2008 will spend most of his or her term cleaning up Mr. Bush's mess.
And on a rather straitened budget.
In other words, as I have suggested before, progressives might actually be better off voting for a respectable Republican in 2008 - if there is one; and focusing on nominating and electing good candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives this year; and start working on electing a competent, experienced liberal/progressive President in 2012.
At least, that's what I've come to. The next President will have to spend four years cleaning up after Mr. Bush - certainly one of the worse presidents in American history. It's a thankless job, and whoever gets it will have a hard time winning re-election.
So, are progressives better off winning in 2008 - putting an inexperienced, budget-strapped, and damaged Democrat in the White House? Or surrounding a moderate-conservative Republican with strong Democratic congressional majorities - and thinking long-term?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)