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.
Monday, February 5, 2007
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.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
A Tax America Needs
It all comes down to oil.
But for oil money, we would likely never have heard of George W. Bush. Or, for that matter, Osama bin Laden.
Ponder that.
Oil money funds the rising power of Iran – and, through Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. It provides much of the financing for Vladimir Putin’s resurgent, disturbingly neo-Soviet, Russia. It enables the Bolivarian revolution which threatens to sweep out of Venezuela to dominate the Caribbean and Latin America.
Even as oil money strengthens our adversaries, America keeps sending dollars abroad to support its oil habit – a fact which has transformed us from the world’s generous creditor into its biggest debtor. At its heart, our permanent trade imbalance has less to do with Wal-Mart than with the corner Exxon station.
Setting all that aside, emissions from automobiles play a critical role in the dawning emergency of global warming.
We must begin cutting back on our consumption of oil, and every thinking American knows it.
The problem is, of course, that our two political parties prefer to focus on replacing foreign oil with something else. Preferably, something produced domestically. Ideally, something produced in abundance in the politically-vital state of Iowa.
Which is simply no answer at all. A gallon of corn-based ethanol requires nearly a gallon of gasoline to produce – making the ethanol subsidy a poor bargain, but a magnificent political boondoggle.
Besides, even if we could grow our own, switching fuels would do little to slow the melting of polar ice-caps, the rising intensity of violent weather systems, the lengthening life-cycles of destructive insects, and the spread of tropical diseases into once-temperate zones.
To reduce our dependence on oil, while addressing global environmental catastrophe, we must use less energy.
To use a word grown curiously hateful to modern conservatives, we must conserve.
The most effective first step toward conservation would be to engage ordinary Americans in thinking seriously about how to reduce their individual reliance on gasoline. If we could do that, the rest would follow.
The proof? Consider what happened to the market for gas guzzlers during last summer’s spike in oil prices. Or the less dramatic, but equally significant, changes in driving behavior.
Market forces work. But that does not – must not – mean we should be entirely at the mercy of unregulated markets. We can manipulate markets to provide incentives for conservation – and the obvious way to do that is artificially to raise the price of gasoline and diesel fuel at the pump.
What we need, as every thoughtful American knows, is to raise the price of gasoline. And the obvious way to do that is through a whopping gasoline surtax, payable at the pump.
The problem with this obvious solution is politics. Big Oil, Detroit, and the Club for Greed would go after a surtax the way Big Pharma and the insurance industry went after the Clinton health reforms.
You can picture the TV ads.
Still, a gasoline surtax is the obvious answer. And, since Americans aren’t very good at trading short-term pain for long-term gain, we need a surtax that doesn’t hurt too much, too quickly, or cause massive disruptions in our lives.
Indeed, we need a surtax that is easy to avoid. Because, as much as Americans hate taxes, they love avoiding taxes even more.
What we need is a surtax that seriously influences energy consumption, but is relatively easy to beat.
Something like this...
A Federal surtax of $1.00 per gallon on gasoline (and diesel) – exempting each licensed, adult driver from the surtax on the first thirty gallons purchased each month.
With modern technology, it should be a simple matter to issue each licensed driver a magnetized card – like a valued customer discount card – which gas station pumps could be adjusted to read. The card would automatically exempt the bearer from the surtax for the first thirty gallons purchased each month. Beginning with the thirty-first gallon, the surtax would kick in.
The average American drives around 10,000 miles a year – about 30 gallons a month in a reasonably fuel-efficient vehicle. Thus, most Americans could avoid paying the tax by making minor modifications in their driving habits. Those who prefer driving gas guzzlers would have to get more creative – but most people could avoid the tax, with a bit of effort.
Such an easily avoided surtax would produce relatively little revenue, but it would work a gradual change in individual consciousness. Like dieters counting carbs, drivers would start keeping track of how many gallons they consumed each month.
Families would give more thought to consolidating trips. Those in the market for cars would look more seriously at fuel efficiency. Intelligent drivers would slow down a bit, which would make us all safer.
A surtax would also exercise a slight, but continuous pressure against long-distance commuting – thus working subtly to curtail suburban sprawl.
But the immediate impact of the surtax would be nothing compared to its long-term utility. Having established a method of encouraging conservation, we could gradually ratchet down the number of gallons exempted – say, one gallon every two years – until, in twenty years, the surtax applied to every gallon over twenty.
That’s a serious reduction in gasoline consumption – but one which allows plenty of time for Detroit to design sexy, fuel-efficient vehicles, and for developers to discover the potential of reviving our cities and close-in suburbs. Time, indeed, for our metropolitan areas to get serious about mass transit.
A surtax along these lines would provide a flexible tool for gradually moving America toward serious energy conservation. It wouldn’t be painless, but it would minimize disruption while imposing a slow, steady market pressure in favor of energy conservation.
And it would square with what we know about Americans’ attitudes toward taxes. By involving all of us in a perpetual hunt for new ways to avoid using more than the exempted number of gallons each month, it would enlist American ingenuity in a permanent search for ways to reduce our dependence on oil.
Worth a try, don’t you think?
But for oil money, we would likely never have heard of George W. Bush. Or, for that matter, Osama bin Laden.
Ponder that.
Oil money funds the rising power of Iran – and, through Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. It provides much of the financing for Vladimir Putin’s resurgent, disturbingly neo-Soviet, Russia. It enables the Bolivarian revolution which threatens to sweep out of Venezuela to dominate the Caribbean and Latin America.
Even as oil money strengthens our adversaries, America keeps sending dollars abroad to support its oil habit – a fact which has transformed us from the world’s generous creditor into its biggest debtor. At its heart, our permanent trade imbalance has less to do with Wal-Mart than with the corner Exxon station.
Setting all that aside, emissions from automobiles play a critical role in the dawning emergency of global warming.
We must begin cutting back on our consumption of oil, and every thinking American knows it.
The problem is, of course, that our two political parties prefer to focus on replacing foreign oil with something else. Preferably, something produced domestically. Ideally, something produced in abundance in the politically-vital state of Iowa.
Which is simply no answer at all. A gallon of corn-based ethanol requires nearly a gallon of gasoline to produce – making the ethanol subsidy a poor bargain, but a magnificent political boondoggle.
Besides, even if we could grow our own, switching fuels would do little to slow the melting of polar ice-caps, the rising intensity of violent weather systems, the lengthening life-cycles of destructive insects, and the spread of tropical diseases into once-temperate zones.
To reduce our dependence on oil, while addressing global environmental catastrophe, we must use less energy.
To use a word grown curiously hateful to modern conservatives, we must conserve.
The most effective first step toward conservation would be to engage ordinary Americans in thinking seriously about how to reduce their individual reliance on gasoline. If we could do that, the rest would follow.
The proof? Consider what happened to the market for gas guzzlers during last summer’s spike in oil prices. Or the less dramatic, but equally significant, changes in driving behavior.
Market forces work. But that does not – must not – mean we should be entirely at the mercy of unregulated markets. We can manipulate markets to provide incentives for conservation – and the obvious way to do that is artificially to raise the price of gasoline and diesel fuel at the pump.
What we need, as every thoughtful American knows, is to raise the price of gasoline. And the obvious way to do that is through a whopping gasoline surtax, payable at the pump.
The problem with this obvious solution is politics. Big Oil, Detroit, and the Club for Greed would go after a surtax the way Big Pharma and the insurance industry went after the Clinton health reforms.
You can picture the TV ads.
Still, a gasoline surtax is the obvious answer. And, since Americans aren’t very good at trading short-term pain for long-term gain, we need a surtax that doesn’t hurt too much, too quickly, or cause massive disruptions in our lives.
Indeed, we need a surtax that is easy to avoid. Because, as much as Americans hate taxes, they love avoiding taxes even more.
What we need is a surtax that seriously influences energy consumption, but is relatively easy to beat.
Something like this...
A Federal surtax of $1.00 per gallon on gasoline (and diesel) – exempting each licensed, adult driver from the surtax on the first thirty gallons purchased each month.
With modern technology, it should be a simple matter to issue each licensed driver a magnetized card – like a valued customer discount card – which gas station pumps could be adjusted to read. The card would automatically exempt the bearer from the surtax for the first thirty gallons purchased each month. Beginning with the thirty-first gallon, the surtax would kick in.
The average American drives around 10,000 miles a year – about 30 gallons a month in a reasonably fuel-efficient vehicle. Thus, most Americans could avoid paying the tax by making minor modifications in their driving habits. Those who prefer driving gas guzzlers would have to get more creative – but most people could avoid the tax, with a bit of effort.
Such an easily avoided surtax would produce relatively little revenue, but it would work a gradual change in individual consciousness. Like dieters counting carbs, drivers would start keeping track of how many gallons they consumed each month.
Families would give more thought to consolidating trips. Those in the market for cars would look more seriously at fuel efficiency. Intelligent drivers would slow down a bit, which would make us all safer.
A surtax would also exercise a slight, but continuous pressure against long-distance commuting – thus working subtly to curtail suburban sprawl.
But the immediate impact of the surtax would be nothing compared to its long-term utility. Having established a method of encouraging conservation, we could gradually ratchet down the number of gallons exempted – say, one gallon every two years – until, in twenty years, the surtax applied to every gallon over twenty.
That’s a serious reduction in gasoline consumption – but one which allows plenty of time for Detroit to design sexy, fuel-efficient vehicles, and for developers to discover the potential of reviving our cities and close-in suburbs. Time, indeed, for our metropolitan areas to get serious about mass transit.
A surtax along these lines would provide a flexible tool for gradually moving America toward serious energy conservation. It wouldn’t be painless, but it would minimize disruption while imposing a slow, steady market pressure in favor of energy conservation.
And it would square with what we know about Americans’ attitudes toward taxes. By involving all of us in a perpetual hunt for new ways to avoid using more than the exempted number of gallons each month, it would enlist American ingenuity in a permanent search for ways to reduce our dependence on oil.
Worth a try, don’t you think?
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
No Virginia, There's No Obama Claus!
[Owing to the hustle and bustle of the Christmas season, I've opted to post my piece in this week's Village News rather than write something uniquely for Gray's Gazette. I trust you will find it worthwhile. RG]
I was probably eight or nine when I started questioning the stories. Anyway, old enough to have mastered long division and to have a basic grasp of geography.
I asked Dad how many people lived in the world. Armed with this information, I did two calculations.
Assuming, naively, that most people lived in families like ours, I divided Dad’s figure by four to derive the number of houses in the world. I divided the result by 24, which I took to be the number of hours Santa Claus – by following the sun – would have to complete his deliveries in a single night.
Studying the result – the number of houses per hour Santa would have to visit – I drew the only logical conclusion. Which was fine, until I decided to share it with my little sister, who didn’t take it well.
Dad then sat me down for a serious talk about the difference between being a good thinker and a good big brother.
This episode stays with me – as does the moral Dad drew. It’s great if a little kid can use logic and long division to solve childhood’s most urgent existential problem – but nobody likes the bearer of ill tidings.
Which is why I approach today’s topic with some trepidation.
At present, all over America, desperate Democrats, liberal independents, idealistic youth, and disciples of Oprah are working themselves into a frenzy about Senator Barack Obama. They’re starting to believe – they want so much to believe – that this bright, engaging young politician is the answer to our nation’s prayers.
And I can’t see it.
Senator Obama might someday be president – perhaps even a great one. But if he runs now – on the message that has propelled him to such sudden and remarkable popularity – I fear he’s doomed to failure.
Because Senator Obama is suggesting that we can have Christmas all year ‘round. He’s selling America the heartwarming Hollywood ending in which everyone comes together as one – the final scene of It’s a Wonderful Life; the cheering crowd scenes at the end of Rocky II, Hoosiers, and a hundred underdog films; Tinker Bell reviving because we all believe – and clap our hands.
Senator Obama has latched onto the popular illusion that democracy would be ever so nice if we all set aside our personal interests, freed ourselves from hatred and prejudice, and dismissed our philosophical differences as just so much idle speculation.
He’s asking why we can’t all get along – and ignoring the obvious answer.
Because we’re not saints.
In this real world, each of us pursues real interests and ambitions. All of us are hampered by hatreds and prejudices inherited from our backgrounds or engendered by personal experiences. And none of us knows everything – or understands everything he knows.
Because this is so, in any society, conflict is inevitable. Especially in a free and democratic society.
We may tell pollsters that we want an end to partisan politics – but pollsters seldom ask which of our personal interests or beliefs we’d be willing to sacrifice for the sake of unity.
Thus, polls fail to disclose that the only bipartisanship most of us would actually accept is one in which those who disagree with us shut up and allowed us to do things our way.
And that’s precisely why Senator Obama is not – and cannot be – what so many Americans want him to be.
He’s obviously an attractive candidate. He might even ride this hunger for unity to the White House.
But once in office, he’d have decisions to make. Every decision would produce winners and losers. And very quickly, Americans would begin to remember that – barring exceptional times of emergency, mourning or celebration – a President can’t really bring us together.
No one can.
At this season, we celebrate the birth of an infant who grew up to preach a gospel of universal brotherhood and peace.
He was killed for it – as were Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas K. Gandhi, and thousands of others, famous and obscure, across the bloody pages of human history.
Which is not to say that the dream – of unity, brotherhood, universal peace – is a lie. The dream is as real as Santa Claus.
But it isn’t the end of the story.
On the day after Christmas, after a long hot bath and lots of Ben-Gay, Santa must start planning the logistics for next Christmas. George Bailey must reopen the Building & Loan and start figuring out how to repay his neighbors’ generosity.
And we must all face jobs and homework; bills, mortgages, and tuition; and the thousand-and-one challenges involved in the pursuit of happiness in a fast-paced, complex society.
Which is why Christmas is so essential. We need this time – so rare in the calendar – to set aside our differences and celebrate the things that unite us.
But what makes Christmas essential is precisely what makes a perpetual Christmas impossible.
Just like the sort of bloodless, non-partisan unity Senator Obama is selling.
I was probably eight or nine when I started questioning the stories. Anyway, old enough to have mastered long division and to have a basic grasp of geography.
I asked Dad how many people lived in the world. Armed with this information, I did two calculations.
Assuming, naively, that most people lived in families like ours, I divided Dad’s figure by four to derive the number of houses in the world. I divided the result by 24, which I took to be the number of hours Santa Claus – by following the sun – would have to complete his deliveries in a single night.
Studying the result – the number of houses per hour Santa would have to visit – I drew the only logical conclusion. Which was fine, until I decided to share it with my little sister, who didn’t take it well.
Dad then sat me down for a serious talk about the difference between being a good thinker and a good big brother.
This episode stays with me – as does the moral Dad drew. It’s great if a little kid can use logic and long division to solve childhood’s most urgent existential problem – but nobody likes the bearer of ill tidings.
Which is why I approach today’s topic with some trepidation.
At present, all over America, desperate Democrats, liberal independents, idealistic youth, and disciples of Oprah are working themselves into a frenzy about Senator Barack Obama. They’re starting to believe – they want so much to believe – that this bright, engaging young politician is the answer to our nation’s prayers.
And I can’t see it.
Senator Obama might someday be president – perhaps even a great one. But if he runs now – on the message that has propelled him to such sudden and remarkable popularity – I fear he’s doomed to failure.
Because Senator Obama is suggesting that we can have Christmas all year ‘round. He’s selling America the heartwarming Hollywood ending in which everyone comes together as one – the final scene of It’s a Wonderful Life; the cheering crowd scenes at the end of Rocky II, Hoosiers, and a hundred underdog films; Tinker Bell reviving because we all believe – and clap our hands.
Senator Obama has latched onto the popular illusion that democracy would be ever so nice if we all set aside our personal interests, freed ourselves from hatred and prejudice, and dismissed our philosophical differences as just so much idle speculation.
He’s asking why we can’t all get along – and ignoring the obvious answer.
Because we’re not saints.
In this real world, each of us pursues real interests and ambitions. All of us are hampered by hatreds and prejudices inherited from our backgrounds or engendered by personal experiences. And none of us knows everything – or understands everything he knows.
Because this is so, in any society, conflict is inevitable. Especially in a free and democratic society.
We may tell pollsters that we want an end to partisan politics – but pollsters seldom ask which of our personal interests or beliefs we’d be willing to sacrifice for the sake of unity.
Thus, polls fail to disclose that the only bipartisanship most of us would actually accept is one in which those who disagree with us shut up and allowed us to do things our way.
And that’s precisely why Senator Obama is not – and cannot be – what so many Americans want him to be.
He’s obviously an attractive candidate. He might even ride this hunger for unity to the White House.
But once in office, he’d have decisions to make. Every decision would produce winners and losers. And very quickly, Americans would begin to remember that – barring exceptional times of emergency, mourning or celebration – a President can’t really bring us together.
No one can.
At this season, we celebrate the birth of an infant who grew up to preach a gospel of universal brotherhood and peace.
He was killed for it – as were Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas K. Gandhi, and thousands of others, famous and obscure, across the bloody pages of human history.
Which is not to say that the dream – of unity, brotherhood, universal peace – is a lie. The dream is as real as Santa Claus.
But it isn’t the end of the story.
On the day after Christmas, after a long hot bath and lots of Ben-Gay, Santa must start planning the logistics for next Christmas. George Bailey must reopen the Building & Loan and start figuring out how to repay his neighbors’ generosity.
And we must all face jobs and homework; bills, mortgages, and tuition; and the thousand-and-one challenges involved in the pursuit of happiness in a fast-paced, complex society.
Which is why Christmas is so essential. We need this time – so rare in the calendar – to set aside our differences and celebrate the things that unite us.
But what makes Christmas essential is precisely what makes a perpetual Christmas impossible.
Just like the sort of bloodless, non-partisan unity Senator Obama is selling.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
The Slow Death of the Democratic Party, Part Two
In my previous posting, I suggested that the Democratic Party appears to be traveling down a path to destruction first blazed by the 19th century Whigs. Today, I’d like to bring those musings into the present day.
First, a partial disclaimer. Historical parallels are a tricky business. Heraclitus rightly observed that “you cannot step twice into the same river”, for history never precisely repeats itself.
But there are patterns. In many ways, history is the unfolding story of human nature writ large – and human nature changes, if at all, at evolutionary speed. Which is why we can still suffer with Job, feel fear and pity watching Greek tragedy, and delight in good productions of Shakespeare.
It is also why nearly every great leader – from every era – has been a student of history.
Because history instructs us, I devoted my last posting to a consideration of the demise of the Whig Party in the 1850's. To summarize, I suggested three major themes:
First, that American political parties – like many human institutions – are permanently defined by the circumstances of their creation. However they may evolve over time, they can never escape the organizational DNA which went into their original organizations.
Second, that political parties begin to die when they begin defining themselves in terms of another party or parties. Stated another way, a party which loses the ability to define a vision of the future – in its own terms – is in grave peril.
Third, that, because America’s two-party system is largely self-perpetuating, a political party can survive for a long time despite dysfunctional organizational DNA and the loss of vision – but that it will eventually shatter when confronted by a great emerging issue it cannot address.
My purpose here is to suggest that the Democratic Party’s organizational DNA is ill-suited to the 21st century – or indeed, to the world of the late 20th century; that, in response to the Reagan Revolution, the Democrats have lost – perhaps irretrievably – their ability to define a vision for America’s future; and that, given those weaknesses, the Democrats now face a cluster of related issues which they may well prove unable to negotiate.
Beginning with the Democratic DNA, one critical weakness in the party has been, from its inception, an excessive reliance upon Presidential leadership. And this makes sense, given that the party was founded in direct reaction against the alleged “corrupt bargain” which denied Andrew Jackson the presidency in 1824. Party organization developed around the national convention, which focused the attention of party leaders on the business of nominating a presidential candidate. Jackson, the party’s founder and first President, was an extreme exponent of executive power – to a degree unprecedented at the time, and not to be seen again in peacetime until the late 20th century.
Throughout its history, the Democratic Party has measured its achievements in terms of its great and near-great Presidents. Unlike the Republicans, the Democratic Party can celebrate no period during which it achieved significant progress primarily under Congressional leadership.
Not surprisingly, then, Democrats have less to show for their periods of legislative control except when the White House was simultaneously held by a strong Democratic president. To a far greater degree than their Republican colleagues, Democratic Senators tend to neglect the possibilities of legislative achievement in order to pursue their own presidential ambitions – a fact which, ironically, makes it difficult for any Democratic president to cooperate effectively with a Senate thronging with his potential successors.
Even today, the newly elected Democratic Congressional majority – swept to power on a wave of public revulsion over the chaos in Mesopotamia – has no plan for ending the war. Indeed, despite the undeniable fact that the war authorized in 2002 – a war against the Saddamist regime – has been over for three years, the incoming Congressional leadership has dismissed out of hand the option of ending American involvement by cutting off funds.
It is, of course, utterly impossible to imagine Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, or Bob Dole adopting such a posture of unilateral disarmament. The leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has started by tying its own hands – a dark omen for the next two years.
The Democrats’ presidential obsession has meant that – to an unhealthy degree – the Party has permitted itself to be redefined every four years by whichever candidate secures its nomination. It has also gradually led the party from a pattern of glorifying past heroes (FDR, Truman, JFK, etc.) to a perpetual search for the next great savior-leader who will rescue the party from obscurity.
The present “rock star” status of Barack Obama – a man of undoubted ability but precious little governmental experience or achievement – is only the latest instance of the Democrats’ chronic desperation.
The second weakness in the Democratic DNA is, simply, that the Party has always been more a coalition than a movement. Arising, as it did, during a period of pronounced sectionalism, the Democratic Party necessarily played down internal differences while focusing upon the personality of Andrew Jackson.
This fact has never really changed. Today’s Democratic Party can most readily be defined by listing its major component groups: labor, particularly the teacher’s unions; African-Americans; feminists and pro-choicers; anti-war voters; senior citizens; and trial lawyers.
The fact that most of these groups are declining as a percentage of the American population is disturbing enough. The fact that each group wields an effective veto over new policy initiatives has – in recent administrations – entirely thwarted the efforts of Democratic presidents to fulfill the dynamic role assigned to them by their party.
In addition to its increasingly dysfunctional DNA, the Democratic Party has, since the Reagan Era, shifted almost entirely into a negative mindset. Anyone who has spent time among Democrats will know that party activists focus far too much of their energy on denunciations of their partisan foes – often in the most intemperate language – and far too little on developing workable policy proposals.
Since Jackson’s day, Democrats have been great haters, but historically, they have also been great dreamers. This is, quite simply, no longer true. JFK and LBJ were the last Democratic presidents to set forth – and follow through on – bold new undertakings. During the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan, an erstwhile New Deal Democrat, borrowed FDR’s visionary vocabulary – and the Republicans have never given it back.
Thus, even today, with new Congressional majorities and a phalanx of Presidential candidates, not one Democrat seems capable of enunciating a bold vision for a better America. George W. Bush may be the lamest of ducks, but the far-too-loyal opposition continues to allow him to set the national agenda – and the terms of debate.
All in all, then, the Democratic Party of today seems incapable performing either of the essential functions of a political party – offering an alternative vision when in opposition, or governing when in power.
Obsessed with presidential leadership, Democrats seem determined to squander their new legislative majorities while waiting for a new Moses to lead them out of the last four decades of political imbecility.
Paralyzed by the incompatible elements within their coalition, they seem entirely unable to proclaim a vision for a better America
Meanwhile, a cluster of intractable challenges – the widening gap between the secure and the insecure in America; declining educational quality for most young Americans; growing trade and Federal deficits; a global environmental crisis; America’s excessive dependence upon non-renewable energy sources; and the persistence of terror networks intent upon doing Americans harm – is coming together to form a perfect political storm.
The name of that storm is the 21st Century – or, as seems increasingly likely, the Post-American Century.
A party capable of governing – or worthy of survival – would not only offer a plan for meeting this perfect storm, but a vision of calm seas and favorable winds on the other side.
Incapable of either, the Democratic Party seems doomed to break apart in the rough seas which are now overtaking it.
First, a partial disclaimer. Historical parallels are a tricky business. Heraclitus rightly observed that “you cannot step twice into the same river”, for history never precisely repeats itself.
But there are patterns. In many ways, history is the unfolding story of human nature writ large – and human nature changes, if at all, at evolutionary speed. Which is why we can still suffer with Job, feel fear and pity watching Greek tragedy, and delight in good productions of Shakespeare.
It is also why nearly every great leader – from every era – has been a student of history.
Because history instructs us, I devoted my last posting to a consideration of the demise of the Whig Party in the 1850's. To summarize, I suggested three major themes:
First, that American political parties – like many human institutions – are permanently defined by the circumstances of their creation. However they may evolve over time, they can never escape the organizational DNA which went into their original organizations.
Second, that political parties begin to die when they begin defining themselves in terms of another party or parties. Stated another way, a party which loses the ability to define a vision of the future – in its own terms – is in grave peril.
Third, that, because America’s two-party system is largely self-perpetuating, a political party can survive for a long time despite dysfunctional organizational DNA and the loss of vision – but that it will eventually shatter when confronted by a great emerging issue it cannot address.
My purpose here is to suggest that the Democratic Party’s organizational DNA is ill-suited to the 21st century – or indeed, to the world of the late 20th century; that, in response to the Reagan Revolution, the Democrats have lost – perhaps irretrievably – their ability to define a vision for America’s future; and that, given those weaknesses, the Democrats now face a cluster of related issues which they may well prove unable to negotiate.
Beginning with the Democratic DNA, one critical weakness in the party has been, from its inception, an excessive reliance upon Presidential leadership. And this makes sense, given that the party was founded in direct reaction against the alleged “corrupt bargain” which denied Andrew Jackson the presidency in 1824. Party organization developed around the national convention, which focused the attention of party leaders on the business of nominating a presidential candidate. Jackson, the party’s founder and first President, was an extreme exponent of executive power – to a degree unprecedented at the time, and not to be seen again in peacetime until the late 20th century.
Throughout its history, the Democratic Party has measured its achievements in terms of its great and near-great Presidents. Unlike the Republicans, the Democratic Party can celebrate no period during which it achieved significant progress primarily under Congressional leadership.
Not surprisingly, then, Democrats have less to show for their periods of legislative control except when the White House was simultaneously held by a strong Democratic president. To a far greater degree than their Republican colleagues, Democratic Senators tend to neglect the possibilities of legislative achievement in order to pursue their own presidential ambitions – a fact which, ironically, makes it difficult for any Democratic president to cooperate effectively with a Senate thronging with his potential successors.
Even today, the newly elected Democratic Congressional majority – swept to power on a wave of public revulsion over the chaos in Mesopotamia – has no plan for ending the war. Indeed, despite the undeniable fact that the war authorized in 2002 – a war against the Saddamist regime – has been over for three years, the incoming Congressional leadership has dismissed out of hand the option of ending American involvement by cutting off funds.
It is, of course, utterly impossible to imagine Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, or Bob Dole adopting such a posture of unilateral disarmament. The leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has started by tying its own hands – a dark omen for the next two years.
The Democrats’ presidential obsession has meant that – to an unhealthy degree – the Party has permitted itself to be redefined every four years by whichever candidate secures its nomination. It has also gradually led the party from a pattern of glorifying past heroes (FDR, Truman, JFK, etc.) to a perpetual search for the next great savior-leader who will rescue the party from obscurity.
The present “rock star” status of Barack Obama – a man of undoubted ability but precious little governmental experience or achievement – is only the latest instance of the Democrats’ chronic desperation.
The second weakness in the Democratic DNA is, simply, that the Party has always been more a coalition than a movement. Arising, as it did, during a period of pronounced sectionalism, the Democratic Party necessarily played down internal differences while focusing upon the personality of Andrew Jackson.
This fact has never really changed. Today’s Democratic Party can most readily be defined by listing its major component groups: labor, particularly the teacher’s unions; African-Americans; feminists and pro-choicers; anti-war voters; senior citizens; and trial lawyers.
The fact that most of these groups are declining as a percentage of the American population is disturbing enough. The fact that each group wields an effective veto over new policy initiatives has – in recent administrations – entirely thwarted the efforts of Democratic presidents to fulfill the dynamic role assigned to them by their party.
In addition to its increasingly dysfunctional DNA, the Democratic Party has, since the Reagan Era, shifted almost entirely into a negative mindset. Anyone who has spent time among Democrats will know that party activists focus far too much of their energy on denunciations of their partisan foes – often in the most intemperate language – and far too little on developing workable policy proposals.
Since Jackson’s day, Democrats have been great haters, but historically, they have also been great dreamers. This is, quite simply, no longer true. JFK and LBJ were the last Democratic presidents to set forth – and follow through on – bold new undertakings. During the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan, an erstwhile New Deal Democrat, borrowed FDR’s visionary vocabulary – and the Republicans have never given it back.
Thus, even today, with new Congressional majorities and a phalanx of Presidential candidates, not one Democrat seems capable of enunciating a bold vision for a better America. George W. Bush may be the lamest of ducks, but the far-too-loyal opposition continues to allow him to set the national agenda – and the terms of debate.
All in all, then, the Democratic Party of today seems incapable performing either of the essential functions of a political party – offering an alternative vision when in opposition, or governing when in power.
Obsessed with presidential leadership, Democrats seem determined to squander their new legislative majorities while waiting for a new Moses to lead them out of the last four decades of political imbecility.
Paralyzed by the incompatible elements within their coalition, they seem entirely unable to proclaim a vision for a better America
Meanwhile, a cluster of intractable challenges – the widening gap between the secure and the insecure in America; declining educational quality for most young Americans; growing trade and Federal deficits; a global environmental crisis; America’s excessive dependence upon non-renewable energy sources; and the persistence of terror networks intent upon doing Americans harm – is coming together to form a perfect political storm.
The name of that storm is the 21st Century – or, as seems increasingly likely, the Post-American Century.
A party capable of governing – or worthy of survival – would not only offer a plan for meeting this perfect storm, but a vision of calm seas and favorable winds on the other side.
Incapable of either, the Democratic Party seems doomed to break apart in the rough seas which are now overtaking it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)