Bush should resign???

The New York Times' Gail Collins wrote a column this past weekend arguing that President Bush should resign immediately in order to allow Barack Obama to deal with the financial crisis immediately rather than wait until January 20. Specifically, her proposal calls for both Bush and Vice President Cheney to resign, which would make House Speaker Nancy Pelosi president until January 20. Collins assumes that Pelosi would serve basically as a puppet for Barack Obama between now and Inauguration Day.

I considered blogging about this idea several weeks ago when a similar proposal was advanced before the election by a pair of op-ed writers in the Boston Globe. If memory serves, I didn't think it deserved the attention at that time. It's still a bad idea, but the attention Collins' piece has drawn to it makes it worth discussing.

Collins' column evinces not the slightest appreciation for the radical nature of her proposal. It is radical in three ways. First, it would set a precedent for making presidential terms of office contingent on outside events. Presidents would be urged to resign whenever it appeared (or was argued) they could no longer be effective during their remaining days in office. This would introduce an element of unpredictability to our system of government that we have wisely avoided up to this point.

Second, Collins' proposal would introduce a new feature into our constitutional scheme: the "caretaker president." According to Collins, Nancy Pelosi would assume the White House for the sole purpose of governing in accordance with the wishes of Barack Obama. This innovation would be truly obnoxious to the concept of an independent executive as enshrined in Article II of the Constitution.

Third, if adopted, Collins' proposal would invite future leaders to use the Constitution's rules regarding presidential succession -- which were intended only to provide continuity of government in cases of unexpected vacancies -- to install virtually anyone they wanted as president. Let's say the powers that be in Washington wished to make Ryan Seacrest president without bothering to have an election. All it would take is for the current vice president to resign and for the president to appoint Seacrest to fill that vacancy. Pursuant to the 25th Amendment, Congress would have to confirm the appointment by a simple majority vote of both houses. Once confirmed, the president would resign, making Ryan Seacrest president. The only thing truly far-fetched in this scenario is using Ryan Seacrest as the hypothetical subject. One could substitute Barack Obama's name for Seacrest's and suddenly it's no more crazy that what Gail Collins is proposing. Arguably, it's a more conservative scheme than that which Collins is advocating, since it completely avoids the "caretaker president" problem. Either way it would be a decision by a relative handful of people in Washington to install a new president without bothering with an election or waiting for the current presidential term to expire.

One would think that a proponent of such a radical proposal would attempt to make a fairly compelling case for its necessity. In the case of Gail Collins, such an expectation would be sorely misplaced. Her main "argument" (if it can be called that) is that Bush should resign in order to avoid being regarded as the worst president in U.S. history (behind James Buchanan), rather than merely one of the worst. In other words, she thinks Bush should resign because resigning would be a good thing for him to do. If it sounds circular, it's because it is.

Collins' other rationale for a Bush resignation -- or perhaps it's the same rationale stated in different words -- is her assertion that the economic crisis requires it. How it requires it is not really clear. Collins seems to believe there are things that Barack Obama could do to help rescue the economy between now and January 20 that can't be done unless Nancy Pelosi is president. Of course, Speaker Pelosi can't become president uner Collins' scenario unless President Bush resigns, which almost certainly won't happen unless he agrees that the policies Obama would seek to implement would in fact be good for the country. In that case, however, he could just begin to implement those policies himself rather than turn over his $400,000-per-year job to Nancy Pelosi for two months. All of this might seem less silly if there were any specifics under discussion as to the "immediate" steps the Obama/Pelosi cabal had in mind for saving the economy. Collins fails to explain what those specific steps are, leading me to wonder if her proposal has any serious purpose other than to provide her with something to write about.

In Collins' defense, there is actually some historical precedent for the idea of a sitting president resigning in order to allow the incoming president to take office prior to Inauguration Day. FDR evidently considered trying to somehow ease Hoover out of office following the 1932 election. Perhaps more significantly, Woodrow Wilson secretly intended to resign in order to allow his opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, to assume the White House if Wilson had lost the 1916 election. I believe Wilson's plan was to appoint Hughes secretary of state, which at that time would have made him third in line for the presidency. Of course, the fact that Wilson considered such a move in 1916 doesn't mean it was a good idea then, let alone that it would be a good idea now. At least in 1916, however, the idea had the backing of the sitting president, and therefore had a chance to be put into practice. In the present instance, all the proposal has going for it is Gail Collins' snarky assertion that Bush needs to resign in order to lock up the number two spot on the list of all-time worst presidents. Presumably, Bush would need to hear a much stronger case for his resignation than Collins has been able to marshal.

Is picking Hillary a hedge strategy?

It looks like Hillary is definitely coming on board as Obama's Secretary of State. I think it's a dumb move on his part, although I'm not personally disappointed because I regard Hillary as somewhat hawkish at least in comparison to other Democrats.

It occurs to me that Hillary could represent something of a hedge strategy for Obama if, as some speculate, he is truly worried about a challenge from her in 2012. Obama may figure that if disaster strikes during his first term, it will be on account of a foreign policy crisis. If so, then putting Hillary in charge of Foggy Bottom would at least ensure that she couldn't capitalize on such a misfortune.

Gay marriage moving at the speed of light

Mort Kondracke: "In recent years, Republicans have let right-wing talk show hosts whip the GOP base into frenzies -- over immigration, brain-damage victim Terry Schiavo and same-sex marriage -- that have branded the party as troglodyte."

This is amazing. Ten years ago, same-sex marriage was unthinkable. Now, to oppose it makes you a troglodyte. Does public opinion really move that fast?

The politics of bailouts

The proposed bailout of the (formerly-)Big Three appears to be in trouble. The simple reason for that is that nobody can keep a straight face while saying the words, "This money will make Detroit competitive again." At most, the bailout would stave off a collapse for several months while not addressing the structural problems that are causing Ford, GM, and Chrysler to lose money on every car they sell.

From a partisan political standpoint, it's hard to see how this issue doesn't end up hurting Democrats. Although those with a direct stake in the health of the auto industry would likely disagree, the public as a whole is clearly skeptical about the wisdom of bailouts in general and of a bailout of Detroit in particular. Importantly, part of the reason for that skepticism is that the Democrats have spent much of the last two years bemoaning all the money we have spent in Iraq and the overall precarious state of the economy. Now that the Dems are on the brink of controlling both political branches of government, they find themselves in the position of backing another huge commitment of funds toward a project that seemingly offers no long-term prospects for success. Moreover, whether or not the bailout occurs, the Dems are still expected to solve the larger financial mess. Thus, it seems to be a no-win situation for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They must either support an unpopular measure that's not likely to work, or not do it and be perceived as having no answers.

Of course, this is really just a function of the overall challenge facing the Democrats: Although they're being asked to fix the economy, it's unlikely there's any "fix" that does not entail a painful and protracted recession. Blaming Bush simply won't make that challenge go away. Declaring that there's nothing to be done won't work either, not after an election in which the American were told they needed the Democrats in power in order to clean up the country's economic mess. The country was promised results and the Democrats need to deliver.

Another problem the bailout presents for the Democrats is that it undermines one of their core political principles: the notion that Washington should stop using fiscal policy to pad the coffers of Big Business. Barack Obama used this theme against McCain when he accused his rival of supporting billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations. But if you think it's bad to give corporations a tax break, how can you justify giving corporations a direct subsidy in the form of a bailout? Suddenly the whole world is upside down: the Democrats are the party of Big Business and the Republicans are telling the corporations to stuff it!

Hopefully the economy will rebound sooner rather than later, whether because of or in spite of the Democrats' actions. I'd much rather see the country get back on its feet economically than see the Democrats suffer because it didn't.

Campaign flashback: "Palling around with terrorists"

Associated Press "News Analysis", Oct. 5, headlined "Palin's words carry a racial tinge":

"Her reference to Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were 'pals' or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career." (Emphasis added.)

Bill Ayers, discussing his relationship with Obama in a forward to his book:

"[W]e had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign." (Emphasis added.)

So apparently they weren't "pals," just "friends." The distinction certainly warrants the AP's calling Sarah Palin a racist liar.

Obama's "Team of Rivals"?

Apparently some people are treating Obama's reported interest in Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State as an act of political genius similar to Lincoln's deft assembly of a "Team of Rivals" to comprise his cabinet. I think this meme gives much too much credit to both Lincoln and Obama.

Lincoln didn't exactly invent the idea of naming strong leaders from a president's own party to cabinet positions. And few if any members of Lincoln's cabinet needed his close supervision to deter them from conspiring to unseat him. Seward was disappointed at losing the nomination in 1860 but had no difficulty accepting Lincoln as his party's leader. Stanton may have been a Lincoln skeptic, but he was wasn't even a candidate in '60, let alone a political force Lincoln needed to worry about. Edward Bates clearly lacked the ambition to intrigue against Lincoln. If memory serves, he could barely be troubled to move to Washington to join the cabinet. In fact, the only cabinet official deserving of a short leash was Salmon Chase, and it's far from clear that Lincoln spared himself any heartache by putting him at Treasury.

As for Obama and Hillary, for reasons discussed in my previous post, appointing her as Secretary of State does virtually nothing to neutralize her as a potential rival. Obama's energies should be focused on performing well as president, not worrying about what Hillary does.

Hillary for Secretary of State?

I'm not sure how seriously to take this, but the name Hillary Rodham Clinton is being floated as a possible Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.

I don't think Hillary would necessarily be a disaster in this role, but it's not a pick that would inspire confidence.

First, her singular focus in the public arena has been on domestic policy. Assuming it would take a top-level cabinet post to entice her to leave the Senate, she would be best suited for Attorney General.

Apart from her lack of expertise in foreign policy, Hillary seems ill fit for Foggy Bottom for reasons of personality and temperament. If the last 16 years have taught us anything about Hillary, it's that she's a fighter, rather than a diplomat, a hard-nosed tactician rather than a grand strategist. It's hard to imagine her thriving in the genteel, nuanced world of international diplomacy.

So if this pick isn't motivated by the desire to find the best person to lead America's diplomatic corps, what is it about?

From Obama's perspective, there may be a couple of reasons why picking Hillary for State reasons may seem like a good idea. For one, it advances his goal of assembling an "all star" cabinet. As I've written before, however, I think a cabinet of "all-stars" needlessly raises expectations he will be hard-pressed to fulfill.

Another motive for Obama to pick Hillary may be to neutralize her as a potential rival in 2012. If that's his rational, however, it is incredibly craven. Surely, if Obama could outwit Hillary for the nomination when he was just an untested freshman senator, he would have no difficulty staving off an intra-party challenge from her as the incumbent president. If Obama is that worried about Hillary in 2012, he should do whatever he can to have a successful first term, including getting the best Secretary of State he can find.

Possibly, Obama's real worry in regard to Hillary is not that she will try to unseat him in 2012, but that she'll undermine his administration in other ways. In that case, he might imagine that involving Hillary in the arcane machinations of foreign affairs will prevent her from engaging in acts of domestic political sabotage. But of course it wouldn't. If anything, the State Department would provide Hillary with plausible cover to engage in whatever nefarious intrigues she could devise.

Truthfully, I can't think of any good reason Obama would want Hillary as Secretary of State.

From Hillary's perspective, it's possible she would envision a stint as Secretary of State as something that would enhance her future presidential prospects. Undoubtedly, it would, assuming she didn't make a botch of it. As a practical matter, however, she probably doesn't need to punch up her resume in order to get back into presidential contention.

The best reason I can think of Hillary to accept this appointment is ambivalence about Obama's prospects for a successful first term. The Secretary of State tends to operate semi-autonomously and, of course, within an area of responsibility many voters studiously ignore. If Obama stumbles badly in the Oval Office, and particularly if the country is mired in deep economic troubles, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would likely avoid any responsibility for the mess. Even as senator her reputation would be at risk, since she would presumably have to support Obama's domestic agenda. The State Department offers Hillary the best of all worlds: a powerful, high-visibility position in the new administration, further enhancement of her presidential qualifications, and insurance against the risk that Obama will fall flat on his face.

For auto industry to move forward, government needs to take its foot off the brakes

The proposed bailout recipient de jour is the U.S. auto industry. Detroit is going broke and many in Congress think the solution involves pumping 25 billion taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the Big Three. I disagree.

If they really want to see the U.S. automakers get back on their feet, the government should encourage them to file bankruptcy and get out from under the bloated union contracts that make it impossible for the Big Three to turn a profit. Ford actually loses something like $1,400 for every vehicle it sells. Collective bargaining agreements require Ford, GM, and Chrysler to pay workers about $25 per hour more than American autoworkers receive in non-union shops. And that's just part of the story. The Big Three must pay UAW employees these exorbitant wages even when there's no work to do, which is increasingly the case. They're also required to fund pension obligations that are clearly beyond the companies' means.

The proposed bailout appears to be consciously aimed to prevent the automakers from filing bankruptcy and getting out from under the UAW contracts. In essence, therefore, it's a bailout of the unions at the expense of the automakers, rather than a bailout of the automakers themselves.

A serious program to revive the domestic auto industry would go beyond merely reforming union contracts. It would also include doing away with CAFE standards, which restrict Detroit's ability to manufacture the larger, more profitable -- and safer -- vehicles that Americans traditionally covet.

Unfortunately, Congress doesn't seem to understand that businesses need to make money if they are to survive. Left to their own devices, the Big Three would make whatever styles and sizes of cars the public was most eager to buy, thus maximizing their profits. Congress, however, wants U.S. automakers to build smaller cars with higher fuel efficiency, and it uses CAFE standards to achieve that goal. Consequently, Detroit sells far fewer cars, and makes much less money, than it should. As a result, Americans don't get to buy the cars they really want and the entire economy suffers from Detroit's financial travails. It's a lose-lose deal for consumers and taxpayers alike.

A federal bailout would be, at best, a temporary means of averting an industry collapse. It will do nothing to solve the underlying problems, much of which are of Washington's own creation.

We're all socialists now

Interesting exchange on Hannity & Colmes last night. And by "interesting", I mean insipid. Evidently, when the Joe the Plumber was Joe the Child, his parents went on welfare a couple of times. And you know what that makes him? A hypocrite for opposing redistribution of wealth! At least that's what a bunch of lefty bloggers are saying.

Although this line of attack is unfair for several reasons, let's just focus on the main one. It's the notion that if the government takes one penny of tax money and gives it to the most destitute person in America, that's wealth redistribution; and anyone who calls himself a free-market capitalist must oppose that use of taxpayer funds or accept the label of "hypocrite." Sorry, but real life is a tad more complicated than that.

I don't know anyone who thinks there shouldn't be any taxpayer-subsidized social safety net for the truly needy. Similarly, I doubt anyone is so much of a free-market capitalist that they oppose any government regulation of business. It's always a question of limiting the role of government to that which is necessary, efficient, and avoids undesired consequences.

I would describe the "conservative" position on welfare as follows: (a) it should exist; (b) it should only be available to the truly needy; (c) it should be administered in a way that avoids fraud and waste; and (d) it should be designed so as to not encourage or permit able-bodied people to use it as an alternative to work. I'm not sure about Joe the Child, but I'm confident Joe the Plumber would agree with all of that.

Now let's talk about what Barack Obama's socialist adherents believe. They want to have the government take a significant chunk of the income of high earners and give it to people in the middle and lower classes in order to make incomes less disparate across the board. Obama himself has sought to justify increasing the capital gains tax rate, a policy he acknowledges tends to reduce overall tax revenues, on grounds of "fairness."

It's one thing to tax people in order to pay for necessary government services and operations. It's quite another to tax people simply to make them less wealthy in relation to others. Unfortunately, in the drive to label yet another political opponent a "hypocrite," the left would have us all ignore that distinction.

Obama's first mistake?

Expectations for Obama's greatness are so high in some quarters that at times it seemed he was leading a cult rather than a political campaign. Obama did nothing to tamp down his supporters' expectations before the election, a decision I assumed he would revisit after.

Then I started to hear a lot of talk yesterday about how the president-elect is trying to assemble an "all-star" cabinet. Putting aside the question of whether a has-been like John Kerry constitutes a "star," is this really the kind of theme Obama ought to be sounding? I would think he would be better served by announcing he's looking for "hard workers who have the patience and stamina to handle the day-to-day work needed to build success over time." Hire John Kerry if you must, but don't raise expectations any higher than they already are.

Remembrances of elections past

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, commentators (myself included) sought to liken the current election to some prior quadrennial contest. The assumption seems to be that we've exhausted our supply of unique elections and are now simply recycling the old ones.

Now that the election of 2008 has passed, we should be able to state with some degree of confidence which previous postwar election it most closely resembles.

Unfortunately for McCain, it wasn't 1948. Although the polls were wildly inconsistent in measuring the extent of Obama's lead, the RCP average of the polls mirrored the final outcome fairly closely. (We should know by now a candidate's in trouble the minute they start talking about 1948.)

We can also toss out the various elections in which a contented public returned an incumbent president to office by an impressive margin. This takes care of Eisenhower's win in '56, LBJ's in '64, Nixon's in '72, Reagan's in '84, and Clinton's in '96. To this list we can add W's reelection in 2004 (although it was close and hotly contested) and his father's defeat of Michael Dukakis in '88 (which was tantamount to a reelection of Ronald Reagan for a third term).

Bush v. Gore also fails to make the first cut. The 2000 election is mainly remembered for "hanging chads" and inaugurating the meme of a "50-50" electorate divided into red and blue states. Apart from the tattered remnants of the red-blue divide, it's hard to see anything in the election of 2008 that's reminiscent of 2000.

That leaves six possible candidates for the election most similar to 2008: Ike v. Stevenson in 1952, Kennedy v. Nixon in 1960, Nixon v. Humphrey and Wallace in 1968, Carter v. Ford in 1976, Reagan v. Carter in 1980, and Clinton v. Bush and Perot in 1992.

Of these, I'm first going to toss out 1960. Although Democrats like to compare Obama to JFK (and, more tellingly, Michelle Obama to Jackie Kennedy), there's no obvious similarity between the actual elections. Americans were reasonably content throughout the Eisenhower years and in 1960 merely had to decide which young Cold Warrior -- the handsome and athletic Kennedy or the pale and lip-sweating Nixon -- ought to succeed him. Shockingly, handsome and athletic won.

We should probably next eliminate 1952. Although that election to succeed an unpopular incumbent pitted an articulate and intellectual politician from Illinois against an aging war hero admired by Republicans and Democrats alike, it ended with a win for the war hero. Sorry, Mac!

The next election to get the boot has to be 1992. Although Clinton, like Obama, was a young newcomer who capitalized on economic worries to defeat the party which had long held the White House, Perot's decisive spoiler role in '92 strains any further comparisons to 2008.

The election of 1968 offers some plausible parallels to 2008, but they don't really hold up under close inspection. These may qualify as troubled times for the U.S., but we're not experiencing assassinations and street riots as was the case 40 years ago. While discontent over the war in Vietnam dominated the election in 1968, the war in Iraq had become virtually a second-tier issue by Election Day 2008. Nixon's perceived role as the tough-minded leader who would restore a sense of order to nation that was falling apart at the seams finds no parallel in Obama's soft-focus hope-a-palooza campaign. Furthermore, Nixon by 1968 was anything but a newcomer on the American political horizon. Finally, any comparisons to 1968 forces us to disregard the third-party candidacy of George Wallace, which garnered 46 electoral votes.

This leaves the two Carter elections, 1976 and 1980. Like others, I've written before about the parallels between this year and 1980. Where I think the comparison falls short is that Reagan was promising not just change, but a very specific kind of change. He sought a mandate to dismantle the big government policies of the past and project strength abroad. Obama's ambitions are far less clear. While there is every reason to suspect he is a man of the left, it's not at all clear that's the reason America is sending him to the White House. To the contrary, his primary appeal derives from his youth and style, and the perceived significance of his racial background. To a large extent, Obama downplayed his liberal philosophical orientation during the general election in order to project an image of moderation and an openness to opposing viewpoints.

The key in all this is the fact that while Reagan represented a political movement, Obama embodies a cultural phenomenon. There is simply no Obama analogue to the terms "Reagan Republican" or "Reagan Democrat." That is not to say Obama name will never be associated with a particular governing philosophy, only that such a philosophy wasn't the focus of his campaign.

That leaves 1976 as my choice for the election most similar to 2008. Both years' campaigns saw the emergence of appealing Democratic candidates who were newcomers to the national stage. Both campaigns featured well-known Republicans who were liked and admired by Americans across the political spectrum. Both of these Republicans, however, were hobbled -- mostly unfairly --by their connections to the grossly unpopular GOP president who had won the previous two elections. Their Democratic nominees, by contrast, were uniquely poised to offer voters the promise of a new era in Washington, free from the taint of the embattled prior incumbent. The promise of change outweighed concerns over the Democratic challenger's relative lack of experience and vaguely-defined political philosophy. The Republican candidates, moreover, were not well-positioned to present an ideological alternative to the Democrats due to their own poorly-defined political philosophies. In the end, despite giving the Democrat an unexpectedly tough run for his money, neither Ford nor McCain was able to stem the tide of change that fate had beckoned.

The parallels between this year and 1976 naturally invite the speculation that Republicans will reclaim the White House in 2012. I hope that happens, but not if it means reliving the Carter years. Good luck, Mr. President.

Did I mention he's black?

My post earlier didn't list among the silver linings of Obama's election that it signifies a landmark in race relations. The omission wasn't intended to be pointed; I just don't share the astonishment that some people seem to feel about the election of a black president. There are a few reasons for this:

1. I've felt all along - certainly since I've been voting - that America was capable of electing a black president. I realize that many black people doubted this, so for them, this is a big deal. But I've never really thought of the country as being so racist that significant numbers of people wouldn't vote for a black candidate for that reason alone.

2. We've had blacks serve as secretary of state, as senator, and in other high-level leadership positions, and when has their race ever been an issue? Indeed, when is the last time any prominent, serious person objected to a black person holding high office in this country? The Truman Administration? Obviously the election of a black man would have seemed fantastic to everyone 50 years ago. But that was, well, 50 years ago. Now it comes as no shock at all, at least not to me.

3. In Obama's case, it was apparent throughout the campaign that his being black was more of an advantage than a disadvantage in attracting votes. It certainly helped against Hillary. I interpreted the "change" in Obama's slogan "change we can believe in" to refer to his race. Hillary also represented "change" (being a woman), but we couldn't believe in her, I interpreted Obama to be saying, because she's about as ethical as Nixon. In Obama, you were getting both "change" (i.e., a candidate who was not a white male), without the cognitive dissonance of voting for a Clinton out of a sense of civic virtue.

4. I would point out that Obama lost the white vote 55% to 44% according to exit poll data I've seen. Not that I'm proposing to move the goalposts or anything, but perhaps we should save the champagne for the day a black wins the majority of white votes -- or a woman wins a majority of male votes. Or not.

Looking on the bright side

OK, that happened.

Fortunately, there are some silver linings. Like these:

1. It looks like the Dems will be held to 56 seats in the Senate, and one of those is Lieberman. Assuming the GOP has 44 seats plus Joementum, they should be able to mount a filibuster on the big, important stuff, even allowing for a couple of defections.

2. Along the lines of what I wrote yesterday, Obama will be taking office without a socialist or even a strong liberal mandate. Based on the morning-after reaction throughout the country (at least as portrayed in the media), the main significance of his victory is that we have now elected the first "black" president. (Nevermind that we've also elected our 44th president of white ancestry.) If the decisive factor in Obama's election was his race, and not a program for wholesale liberal reform, then it's not at all clear that the country will support a leftist agenda.

My gut tells me the voters tended to ignore the Jeremiah-Wright-slash-Bill-Ayers-type revelations about Obama because they took him at his word that he was not, in fact, a wild-eyed leftist fanatic. Democratic leaders and the media certainly did their utmost to assure the public that Obama was a "safe," mainstream candidate, who was not even "the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate" as the National Journal had claimed. If that was the figurative deal he made with the American voters to get elected, he's going to have to honor it to some extent once he takes office.

3. I don't relish the thought of the Dems having control of the White House and both houses of Congress. On the other hand, I do sort of relish the thought that they will have all the responsibility.

4. Obama's election makes it highly unlikely Hillary will ever become president.

5. Gay marriage lost out in California and across the country. I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I'm even more opposed to the notion that a state constitution can be amended by judicial fiat. It's a usurpation of our democratic liberties regardless of the cause in whose name it is being done. If the people want to enshrine a right to gay marriage in their state or federal constitutions, let them go through the established amendment process. It's outrageous for judges to claim the right to create new constitutional rights from the bench.

6. Another silver lining, I have to admit, is the fact that John McCain wasn't elected. If he had been, I think it would have been another four years of continuous acrimony and recriminations from the left (so, yes, in that sense at least, "McSame"). This is especially true when you consider that the only way McCain was going to win was in a real squeaker. Therefore, we would have almost certainly had all manner of litigation, accusations of vote fraud, and possibly riots in the street.

It actually is somewhat hard to imagine McCain having a successful presidency under such circumstances. The left would have treated him as a fiend, and McCain would probably have tried to earn their good will by bending over backward to accommodate them. It would not have been an ideal time for the conservative movement.

7. Speaking of conservatives, we now have an opportunity to take a breather of sorts and regroup. The central issue facing the GOP is whether to try to lead the country toward authentically conservative principles or whether to go along with the larger historical trend in favor of ever-increasing government involvement in the economy. Conservatism has been described as a three-legged stool, consisting of (a) strong national defense/foreign policy, (b) social conservatism (including judicial appointments), and (c) economic conservatism as measured by low taxes, smaller government, less regulation, and free trade. The party is actually fairly consistent in regard to the first two legs, despite a number of prominent GOP leaders who are pro-choice. The problem has been in regard to spending, entitlements, and related issues like immigration. There's an inherent problem for Republicans in trying to champion economic conservatism. The Dems and the media tend to demagogue on these issues and portray the GOP as a bunch of fatcats and meanies. We need to find out if there are a sufficient number of Republican leaders willing to make a stand for economic conservatism. Simply advocating lower taxes is not enough. We need to challenge the entire welfare-state mentality that perceives it to be the government's primary responsibility to provide everyone (including illegal aliens!) with a comfortable middle-class lifestyle.

8. Finally, I'm glad to see the Republicans reacting to Obama's win in a calm and generally respectful manner. Conservatives have a lot of work to do to bounce back from where we are. We also have legitimate grievances -- against the media, for example -- and legitimate worries about what the next four years hold in store for the nation. Nevertheless, we can't change any of those things today, and no amount of kicking and screaming is going to help.

Election Day Angst

Actually, I'm not nearly as anxious about today's election as I was in 2004. Kathryn Jean Lopez has an interesting post on the Corner that helps to explain the difference. Evidently, she wrote in 2004 that the election that year was so important, she would almost be willing to concede the 2008 race to the Democrats in order to win in 2004. I think I felt exactly the same way at the time.

In 2004, I felt the race was essentially a referendum on whether a U.S. president could take aggressive steps, up to and including waging war, in order to combat the Islamic extremism that was threatening to destroy, over time, Western civilization. John Kerry, in my mind, represented capitulation to the Islamofascist threat in its various forms, including the deferring of judgment in the matter to the pinstriped pantywaists that control the U.N.

This year, I don't feel that Americans are voting on the anything as monumental as all that. As a matter of fact, if Obama wins, it's not clear what the American people will have voted "for." I specifically don't think a majority of voters want socialism, even if that's what Obama has up his sleeve. While Obama's election would carry with it a raft of bad consequences for the country, I don't think it would tell us a great deal about the electorate beyond the obvious fact that Americans are very confused about the state of the economy and worried about the future.

Indeed, that's probably the best summary I could give of this election. People are confused, worried, and angry about the sense of crisis that's gripping the country. They don't really know who or what to blame. Obama is superficially a more attractive choice because he advocates "change." McCain is reassuring at some level, but it's never been clear exactly what he stands for. So it really does all boil down to "change" and "hope": roll the dice on "change" and "hope" we still have a country four years from now.

Obama's assist from the media

Assuming, as expected, Obama wins tomorrow's election, what will that tell us about America in 2008?

Mainly, it tells us that the mainstream media have shifted from being merely biased in its coverage to operating as de facto propaganda ministry for the Democratic Party. What I'll remember above all else from this campaign is the outright refusal of the media to report revelations about Obama that would have been daily, front-page news in any other year. The examples are so many, it would be depressing to recite them all. However, it's no exaggeration to say that the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe received more press attention than the fact that Barack Obama belonged to a Socialist fringe party in the 1990s.

When it was not simply ignoring negative stories about Obama, the media sought to defuse legitimate attacks on Obama -- and indeed turn them against McCain and the Republicans --through a highly propagandistic device known as the "fact check." At best, the "fact check" is a vehicle through which a news organization can examine a disputed, controversial issue and render a judgment as to which side (Obama's) was telling the truth and which side (McCain's) was being less than honest. At worst, the fact-checkers performed this function with respect to charges and allegations against Obama that were indisputably true. In that case, the "fact check" tended to conclude with the reporter's blessing of whatever spin the Obama campaign happened to put on the charge.

Here's an illustration of how a "fact check" tended to work in practice:

• THE CHARGE: While serving in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama kidnapped and murdered dozens of teenage girls. John McCain says he has videotapes to prove it, along with DNA tests and affidavits from a number of victims who managed to escape.
• THE FACTS: Obama's plan for kidnapping and murder specifically exempts girls ages 13-16. Furthermore, according to his website, the vast majority of American teenagers would not be kidnapped and murdered if Obama is elected.
• THE VERDICT: McCain's effort to play on Americans' fear of kidnapping and murder is misleading at best, and possibly racist. Fact Checker gives him 2 Pinocchios.

What we've seen from the media this year is the kind of change Goebbels could believe in.