I haven't been blogging much recently. There are perhaps several reasons for this, but I attribute it mainly to the fact that Obama's actions thus far seem utterly divorced from any recognizable objectives. During the election, all the candidates were working toward the same goals: win the nomination; win the general election. Every development could be assessed according to whether it would help or hurt a candidate in reaching those goals. In sporting terms, the process was akin to watching a group of Olympic swimmers competing in a freestyle event.
Now that Obama is president, it seems he's the only one in the pool. And instead of swimming from one end of the pool to the other, he is darting about in random directions, with no apparent purpose other than to keep moving. Of course, that's only my impression. In fact, there is probably some point to the exercise; it's just not apparent to me. Nevertheless, it quickly becomes a boring thing to watch and I find my attention drawn elsewhere.
In real-life terms, the country is mired in a deep rescession that threatens to become a depression. The expected response to such a crisis would be a combination of measures to stimulate growth and productivity while providing some relief for those hardest hit. Obama's approach, however, is primarily to create massive amounts of government debt through spending that will do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy in the short term. Clearly, some people will benefit from the so-called "stimulus" package and Obama's other spending measures -- ACORN comes to mind -- but it is difficult to see how his programs will improve the economy as a whole. In order to put money into the economy, the government first has to take the money out of the economy, either by borrowing private capital or through higher taxes. Of course, if the feds can quickly use the money to place orders for some new government cars, for example, the effect will be to "create" some jobs. However, this will not permanently increase the level of demand for new cars. In fact, it may hurt future demand, as taxpayers will eventually be forced to foot the bill for the new government vehicles. As in the swimming analogy, I fail to see the point of the exercise.
The dubious premise of the "stimulus" package and, it seems, the entire theme of Obama's speech before Congress last night was that, if allowed to do what it wants, the federal government can solve any and all of the problems facing Americans in this economy. From what I heard of the speech, it was a rehash of his campaign promises: "We will give you health care. We will give you a college education. We will help you pay your mortgage. We will create a job for you. And it won't cost you a thing." This is, of course, utter nonsense. Beyond that, it is not what Americans need to hear. The truth is, we need less government control over the economy if the economy is to really improve. We need to restore the notion that wealth comes, not from the government, but from hard work, investment, and innovation. I didn't expect Barack Obama to be Ronald Reagan, but does he have to be Evita Peron?
The notion that the government can fix what's wrong with America through various sorts of handouts and bailouts is a pipe dream. What is worse, it is absolutely terrifying to the entrepreneurs, investors, and business leaders (a/k/a "the rich") who would like to go trying to expand the economy but whom Obama evidently perceives as human pinatas. It is no coincidence that stock prices have plummeted since Obama took office.
The one bit of solace to take from the events of the last month is in the realization that not everyone is falling for Obama's snake oil pitch. There are rumblings, here and there, among average Americans who see where this is heading and don't want to go along for the ride. Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than distant rumblings to divert the Obama juggernaut off its present course. The conservative opposition both in Congress and in the media are still in quasi-honeymoon mode, evidently choosing to hold their fire until such time as forthright criticism of Obama at least surpasses incest on the scale of socially acceptable conduct. Hopefully, it won't be such a long wait.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Obama's inauspicious beginning
So far, it appears my decision to give the new president the benefit of the doubt is going to be repaid with nothing but heartache and disappointment. Well, perhaps that's an overstatement. Still, it's hard to find any encouraging in the following:
First, the Dems are in the process of enacting a "stimulus" bill that appears to have almost nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Rather, it's nothing more than a spending bill designed to reward every liberal constituency imaginable for their support of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. How else to explain doling out over $4 billion to groups like ACORN? Where's the "stimulus" in that?
During the campaign, Obama told the American people over and over again that he would pay for his new programs by cutting spending in other areas. Now we are looking at new spending of something like a trillion dollars a year, so we have not only that to pay for, but also no foreseeable way to pay for Obama's other new spending promises.
The recession is clearly just an excuse for this spending rampage, not the reason for it. Only a small fraction of the spending is truly stimulative, and most of it won't take place soon enough to do the economy any immediate good.
The hypocrisy of this is truly astounding. For years, Democrats complained about how the Iraq war was bankrupting the government and driving the economy down the drain. Now, barely a week into the new administration, the Dems are already adding in new spending an amount equivalent to twice what the war in Iraq has cost since its inception. And for what? What does the average American get in exchange for trillion dollar deficits?
The only good news in this is that House Republicans managed to stick together and unanimously oppose the so-called stimulus package. That should help them in the 2010 midterm elections.
In other depressing news, Obama gave an interview to an Arab-language TV network in which he bent over backward to validate claims that U.S. policy toward the Muslim world over the last thirty years has been disrespectful and arrogant. The American media seemed in awe of Obama for "reaching out" to Muslims in such a clever way, ignoring the fact that, in so doing, the president essentially tossed away whatever credibility and moral standing the U.S. had built up in that part of the world under previous Democratic and Republic administrations alike.
Hopefully, the day will arrive -- and soon -- when people's perception of Obama matches the reality. That's all I ask.
First, the Dems are in the process of enacting a "stimulus" bill that appears to have almost nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Rather, it's nothing more than a spending bill designed to reward every liberal constituency imaginable for their support of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. How else to explain doling out over $4 billion to groups like ACORN? Where's the "stimulus" in that?
During the campaign, Obama told the American people over and over again that he would pay for his new programs by cutting spending in other areas. Now we are looking at new spending of something like a trillion dollars a year, so we have not only that to pay for, but also no foreseeable way to pay for Obama's other new spending promises.
The recession is clearly just an excuse for this spending rampage, not the reason for it. Only a small fraction of the spending is truly stimulative, and most of it won't take place soon enough to do the economy any immediate good.
The hypocrisy of this is truly astounding. For years, Democrats complained about how the Iraq war was bankrupting the government and driving the economy down the drain. Now, barely a week into the new administration, the Dems are already adding in new spending an amount equivalent to twice what the war in Iraq has cost since its inception. And for what? What does the average American get in exchange for trillion dollar deficits?
The only good news in this is that House Republicans managed to stick together and unanimously oppose the so-called stimulus package. That should help them in the 2010 midterm elections.
In other depressing news, Obama gave an interview to an Arab-language TV network in which he bent over backward to validate claims that U.S. policy toward the Muslim world over the last thirty years has been disrespectful and arrogant. The American media seemed in awe of Obama for "reaching out" to Muslims in such a clever way, ignoring the fact that, in so doing, the president essentially tossed away whatever credibility and moral standing the U.S. had built up in that part of the world under previous Democratic and Republic administrations alike.
Hopefully, the day will arrive -- and soon -- when people's perception of Obama matches the reality. That's all I ask.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Caroline, No
This post isn't about Brian Wilson's song, but rather another exercise in 1960's nostalgia: the failed attempt by Caroline Kennedy to succeed Hillary Clinton as New York's junior senator.
The Democrats should all send Gov. Patterson a thank you note for not giving into the pressure to name Ms. Kennedy to the seat. Republicans took a hit a couple years back by a nasty string of scandals that created the impression of a "culture of corruption." Something similar could happen to Democrats if they appear to be treating high public office as a mere reward to be conferred on celebrities and other lightweights.
The Democrats have already added Al Franken and Roland Burris to their Senate caucus. Appointing Ms. Kennedy to the seat ahead of innumerable candidates who were better qualified would have appeared frivolous at best, and highly cynical at worst.
Even without Kennedy, Senate Democrats are becoming an increasingly unimpressive lot. Clinton's seat was formerly held by the estimable Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Nobody of his stature remains. The Lion of the Senate, Caroline's Uncle Ted, is in the closing chapter of his Senate career. Robert Byrd, who was once admired as a great defender of the institution, rules, and traditions of the Senate, has been similarly ravaged by age and poor health. The thoughtful and admired Joe Lieberman is a pariah among Democrats. The talented Christopher Dodd has been (justly) tainted on account of preferential treatment he received from a mortgage company. Up-and-comers Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have moved onward and upward.
Unfortunately, the crew left behind in the wake by these stalwarts is decidedly lacking in stature. Majority Leader Harry Reid evokes anything but true leadership. Men like Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin have become the visible face of the Senate Democrats. The only good news is the buffoonish Joe Biden's ascension to the vice presidency, which seems to qualify as addition by subtraction.
In fairness, the talent level of Senate Republicans has probably fallen off as well over the last few years. What's troubling in the case of the Democrats, however, is that there's no strong core of leadership among the senators of Barack Obama's own party to guide him through the difficult times ahead. The Senate was meant to serve not merely as a check on executive power, but as a source of advice and counsel for the president. It would be nice to believe the Senate was stocked with sufficient human capital to serve that function for a young and untested president.
The Democrats should all send Gov. Patterson a thank you note for not giving into the pressure to name Ms. Kennedy to the seat. Republicans took a hit a couple years back by a nasty string of scandals that created the impression of a "culture of corruption." Something similar could happen to Democrats if they appear to be treating high public office as a mere reward to be conferred on celebrities and other lightweights.
The Democrats have already added Al Franken and Roland Burris to their Senate caucus. Appointing Ms. Kennedy to the seat ahead of innumerable candidates who were better qualified would have appeared frivolous at best, and highly cynical at worst.
Even without Kennedy, Senate Democrats are becoming an increasingly unimpressive lot. Clinton's seat was formerly held by the estimable Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Nobody of his stature remains. The Lion of the Senate, Caroline's Uncle Ted, is in the closing chapter of his Senate career. Robert Byrd, who was once admired as a great defender of the institution, rules, and traditions of the Senate, has been similarly ravaged by age and poor health. The thoughtful and admired Joe Lieberman is a pariah among Democrats. The talented Christopher Dodd has been (justly) tainted on account of preferential treatment he received from a mortgage company. Up-and-comers Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have moved onward and upward.
Unfortunately, the crew left behind in the wake by these stalwarts is decidedly lacking in stature. Majority Leader Harry Reid evokes anything but true leadership. Men like Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin have become the visible face of the Senate Democrats. The only good news is the buffoonish Joe Biden's ascension to the vice presidency, which seems to qualify as addition by subtraction.
In fairness, the talent level of Senate Republicans has probably fallen off as well over the last few years. What's troubling in the case of the Democrats, however, is that there's no strong core of leadership among the senators of Barack Obama's own party to guide him through the difficult times ahead. The Senate was meant to serve not merely as a check on executive power, but as a source of advice and counsel for the president. It would be nice to believe the Senate was stocked with sufficient human capital to serve that function for a young and untested president.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Inauguration Day
President Obama's inaugural address received good (albeit not glowing) reviews from most of the commentators I've heard or read in the last 24 hours. Listening to the speech on the radio, however, I found it quite lacking. About ten minutes into the speech, I found myself still struggling to discern any kind of theme or structure to it. Admittedly, it got somewhat better during the last five minutes or so. Moreover, by the end, Obama had strung together enough discrete ideas to provide a general impression of his vision for the next four years. But I don't believe Obama's vaunted rhetorical skills did much to elevate the particular thoughts he set out to convey.
Boiled down to its very essence, the point of the speech seemed to be: "These are tough times but we can work through these problems just as we have in the past." He indicated that solving the country's problems would require some new approaches but that we'll need to rely on our longstanding values and traditions to help us muddle through. So, in a sense, it was both forward-looking and backward-looking at the same time.
If that's what Obama was trying to say, one would think that finding inspiring words in which to say it shouldn't have been enormously difficult. Instead, the speech seemed weirdly disjointed to me, like something he might have cobbled together the night before from the texts of earlier addresses.
Not that it really matters. Practically the only thing people remember from the entire corpus of presidential inaugural addresses "Ask not what your country can do for you . . ." and "The only thing we have to fear . . . ." Had Obama been able to come up with just one line like these, he could have spent the remaining twenty minutes of his speech reading from the D.C. telephone directory. In fifty years, nobody would know the difference.
Speaking of history, the stupidest thing I heard all day was from the several news commentators who declared that this inauguration represented the 44th time America has witnessed a "peaceful transfer of power" from one president to another. Oh really? I wouldn't call the transfer of power from Abraham Lincoln to Andrew Johnson "peaceful." Ditto for the transfers of power that took place in 1881, 1901, and 1963. If the transfer of power from Kennedy to LBJ was "peaceful," I'd hate to see what a violent transfer of power would look like.
Not that I really expect this level of precision from TV newsreaders, but it seems to me the relevant number is 35. That's the number of times a sitting president voluntarily relinquished the powers of the presidency to his elected (34 times) or unelected (Gerald Ford) successor.
I do think it's a good thing to see people at both ends of the political spectrum celebrating this marvelous civic tradition. I wish those on the left (and the media, for that matter) had felt a similar sense of wonder during the corresponding events four and eight years ago. As I recall from Inauguration Day 2001 and 2005, a great deal of the focus was on the number of protesters who were planning to show up and make trouble. Democrats seemed to feel that these inaugurals somehow symbolized a perversion of our electoral process rather than its fulfillment. Funny what a difference a few years can make.
Boiled down to its very essence, the point of the speech seemed to be: "These are tough times but we can work through these problems just as we have in the past." He indicated that solving the country's problems would require some new approaches but that we'll need to rely on our longstanding values and traditions to help us muddle through. So, in a sense, it was both forward-looking and backward-looking at the same time.
If that's what Obama was trying to say, one would think that finding inspiring words in which to say it shouldn't have been enormously difficult. Instead, the speech seemed weirdly disjointed to me, like something he might have cobbled together the night before from the texts of earlier addresses.
Not that it really matters. Practically the only thing people remember from the entire corpus of presidential inaugural addresses "Ask not what your country can do for you . . ." and "The only thing we have to fear . . . ." Had Obama been able to come up with just one line like these, he could have spent the remaining twenty minutes of his speech reading from the D.C. telephone directory. In fifty years, nobody would know the difference.
Speaking of history, the stupidest thing I heard all day was from the several news commentators who declared that this inauguration represented the 44th time America has witnessed a "peaceful transfer of power" from one president to another. Oh really? I wouldn't call the transfer of power from Abraham Lincoln to Andrew Johnson "peaceful." Ditto for the transfers of power that took place in 1881, 1901, and 1963. If the transfer of power from Kennedy to LBJ was "peaceful," I'd hate to see what a violent transfer of power would look like.
Not that I really expect this level of precision from TV newsreaders, but it seems to me the relevant number is 35. That's the number of times a sitting president voluntarily relinquished the powers of the presidency to his elected (34 times) or unelected (Gerald Ford) successor.
I do think it's a good thing to see people at both ends of the political spectrum celebrating this marvelous civic tradition. I wish those on the left (and the media, for that matter) had felt a similar sense of wonder during the corresponding events four and eight years ago. As I recall from Inauguration Day 2001 and 2005, a great deal of the focus was on the number of protesters who were planning to show up and make trouble. Democrats seemed to feel that these inaugurals somehow symbolized a perversion of our electoral process rather than its fulfillment. Funny what a difference a few years can make.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Worst president ever?
Liberals apparently made up their minds several years ago that Bush would go down in history as the worst president in U.S. history -- or, in any event, that it would be a good idea to try to tag him with that label. It has become such a commonplace on the left that nobody ever bothers to explain what Bush has done to earn this uncoveted distinction.
It should be obvious that a ranking of the "greatest" or "worst" presidents requires a lot more work than compiling a list of, say, history's greatest golfers or baseball players. For one thing, all golfers and baseball players are trying to accomplish the same thing: winning championships. Moreover, an athlete's success or failure is determined objectively; they either hoist the trophy or they don't. Presidents come to office with an assortment of plans and goals, and the "playing field" changes dramatically from one era to the next. This makes it exceedingly hard to compare one president to another.
Despite this, it is still possible to craft a set of loose criteria for evaluating presidents that I think most people would find generally acceptable. I would propose something along the lines of the following:
First, did the president accomplish things, or was he largely unable to make progress on his agenda?
Second, were the president's achievements consequential and of lasting duration, or were they insignificant and/or short-lived?
Third, were the president's policies generally beneficial to the country or were they harmful?
Fourth, did the president exercise effective leadership on the major problems of the day, or did he fail to perceive or confront such issues?
Finally, did the president's tenure in office enhance the dignity and stature of the office, or did the president leave the office in a worse condition than he found it?
Based on these five measures, which I think are fair and completely neutral, it should be clear that Bush fares reasonably well against other presidents.
To take the easy part first, Bush clearly scores well on three of the five criteria: the first, fourth, and fifth. His major accomplishments include NCLB, Medicare prescription drugs, reorganizing the government in the wake of 9/11, combating disease and poverty in Africa, tax cuts, and fighting two wars. He also has a number of important but lower-profile accomplishments, such as bankruptcy reform, class action reform, and the deployment of a ballistic missile defense system. Bush's record of accomplishments compares favorably to that of his immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton. Clinton's signature accomplishment was welfare reform, and he had a signature non-achievement in HillaryCare. By comparison, Bush failed to get anything done on immigration and Social Security privatization. Even so, Bush clearly took on more and got more done.
Bush also scores well on the fourth criteria: taking on the major problems of the day. Bush directed most of his attention and energies to the struggle against Islamic extremism, which is without question one of the biggest problems the country faced during his time in office (if not the biggest). Bush never played small-ball and was perhaps the antithesis of the caretaker-style presidents America had during much of the 19th Century. Not to pick on Bill Clinton, but so much of his presidency was spent on impeachment and various scandals, squabbling with Newt Gingrich, the failed health care program, and small-ball programs like midnight basketball, it seems those are the things he is most remembered for. Whether you appreciate him or not, Bush will be remembered for his handling of major substantive issues such as 9/11 and Iraq.
A third area in which Bush scores particularly well is on the question of enhancing the stature and dignity of the office. Bush was a strong president who was willing to make unpopular decisions. His critics complained of an "imperial presidency" and accused him of expanding presidential powers beyond the limits of the Constitution. Fair to say, presidents who have been accused of acting like a dictator, e.g., Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, have fared better in the judgment of history than presidents who were regarded as weak, e.g., Buchanan, Taft, Carter, Bush 41. George W. Bush has never been accused of being a "weak" president.
In addition to being a "strong" president, Bush deserves credit for avoiding any personal scandal and for never, to my memory, engaging in petty, personal politics. He treated his opponents with respect and class, despite rarely being repaid in kind.
Thus it appears that on at least three of the five stated criteria, Bush scores fairly high. The remaining two, however, present a great deal more difficulty.
The first of these remaining criteria asks whether the president's achievements were consequential and lasting, or whether they will prove to be of minor or only temporary significance. The obvious answer is that it's too early to tell. However, Bush may indeed have left a lasting mark in a number of ways. First, he redefined Islamofascist terrorism as a serious national security threat, rather than a mere law enforcement concern. Bush took a lot of grief for labeling the struggle a "War on Terror." Some critics thought that formulation portended the sort of bureaucratic dog-and-pony show we've seen in the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty. But Bush ran the War on Terror like a real war, not a p.r. campaign. He mobilized the government, gathered intelligence, and sent troops overseas to kill bad guys. It was a deadly serious business and it accomplished real results. Because of this, it's hard to imagine Obama or his successors closing down the operation anytime soon.
Part of Bush's vision for combating international terrorism included a new Grand Strategy for the U.S.: the spreading of democracy and liberty around the world as a means of neutralizing or marginalizing would-be terrorists. Bush actively pursued this strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, an experiment Obama is unlikely to repeat anywhere else. But the fact that Obama won't, for example, send troops to "liberate" Iran doesn't necessary signal an abandonment of this aspect of the Bush Doctrine. Although the Left is fond of caricaturing Bush as an egotistical loose cannon recklessly demanding other countries become "just like us," the fact remains that freedom and democracy may be the best medicine the civilized world has against violent extremism. Future presidents will likely recognize this and conduct their foreign policies accordingly, whether or not they credit Bush for the inspiration.
Finally, we come to the most controversial part of the analysis: whether the president's policies were ultimately good or bad for the country. The answer to this question obviously depends on the answerer's own ideology and policy preferences. There are serious people even today who consider Lincoln a terrible president for answering the movement of southern states toward secession with violence. With the possible exception of Gerald Ford, one has to go back at least as far as Truman to find a president largely admired across the ideological spectrum (although Harry's growing popularity with conservatives is perhaps at the expense of his popularity with liberals).
Because of the ideological component, it seems silly to expect consensus on the question of whether a president's policies were good or bad for the country. Moreover, there is the problem of not knowing how events would have played out had the president chosen a different course from what he did. One way to get around this problem is to consider whether future presidents (or generations) ultimately decided to reaffirm or to reject the president's policies, and if so, with what results. An example of reaffirmation might be the Republicans' refusal to try to dismantle New Deal programs during the post-war era. An example of rejection might be Reagan's refusal to go along with the Cold War policies of detente and arms reductions, but instead take a hard line against the Soviets.
In Bush's case, it seems unlikely Mr. Obama or future leaders will seek to undo many of the things he has done as president, except perhaps symbolically. Obama will eventually close Guantanamo, but that should be of little real consequence. He will remove troops from Iraq, but that would have happened under Bush anyway. He will put more troops into Afghanistan, thus essentially reaffirming Bush's decision to go to war there. The FISA controversy has already been addressed legislatively; Bush signed the bill and Obama supported it. Obama will probably try to mollify his supporters on the "torture" issue by rejecting Bush's "harsh interrogation" policy. However, much of that will be symbolic as detainees are no longer being waterboarded anyway. Obama's clearly not going to undo the sweeping reorganization of government to address the terror threat. It seems doubtful he would take down the missile shield. He won't slash aid to Africa. Perhaps he will repeal NCLB, but I would question whether that makes sense politically. He won't kill the Medicare prescription drug benefit unless it is done in order to make way for a more sweeping health care program that would include prescription medications. He may not let the Bush tax cuts expire until after the economy is moving again.
Don't get me wrong. There will be a lot of changes throughout the government marking the handover of power from a Republican to a Democratic administration. My point is simply that there is unlikely to be a wholesale effort to dismantle the substantive legacy of the Bush administration. In particular, it seems absurd to suggest Obama will seek a restoration of the pre-9/11 approach to counterterrorism and homeland security. More likely, Obama will look for ways to make symbolic breaks from Bush -- closing Gitmo, for example -- while leaving much of his actual accomplishments intact.
My proposed criteria for evaluating presidents does not particular notice of economic conditions during a president's administration, which I'm sure some people would argue let's Bush off the hook for the current economic crisis we are facing. Generally speaking, however, presidents don't have enough influence over the health of the economy to justify evaluating them on economic conditions. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and is leaving one for Obama. While I believe Bush's tax cuts helped revive the economy in the wake of the bursting of the dot.com bubble, I don't think he deserves a great deal of the credit or blame for economic conditions over the last six or seven years. I don't believe Bush should be blamed for the credit crisis that emerged last October, and I would note that the people claiming Bush is the worst president ever started making this claim well before the economy started falling apart.
Overall, it seems to me that Bush was far from the worst president we've ever had. In fact, he was at least an average president, probably better. He was very much a mixed bag in that he was a good executive decision-maker but an inept communicator. He infuriated people on both ends of the political spectrum, yet still managed to build a fairly impressive record of accomplishments. He clearly left a mark on America's foreign policy and national security infrastructure, and plainly succeeded in confronting his biggest challenge: the threat of terrorism in the U.S. I'll miss him, and I wouldn't be surprised if the country starts to miss him before too long.
It should be obvious that a ranking of the "greatest" or "worst" presidents requires a lot more work than compiling a list of, say, history's greatest golfers or baseball players. For one thing, all golfers and baseball players are trying to accomplish the same thing: winning championships. Moreover, an athlete's success or failure is determined objectively; they either hoist the trophy or they don't. Presidents come to office with an assortment of plans and goals, and the "playing field" changes dramatically from one era to the next. This makes it exceedingly hard to compare one president to another.
Despite this, it is still possible to craft a set of loose criteria for evaluating presidents that I think most people would find generally acceptable. I would propose something along the lines of the following:
First, did the president accomplish things, or was he largely unable to make progress on his agenda?
Second, were the president's achievements consequential and of lasting duration, or were they insignificant and/or short-lived?
Third, were the president's policies generally beneficial to the country or were they harmful?
Fourth, did the president exercise effective leadership on the major problems of the day, or did he fail to perceive or confront such issues?
Finally, did the president's tenure in office enhance the dignity and stature of the office, or did the president leave the office in a worse condition than he found it?
Based on these five measures, which I think are fair and completely neutral, it should be clear that Bush fares reasonably well against other presidents.
To take the easy part first, Bush clearly scores well on three of the five criteria: the first, fourth, and fifth. His major accomplishments include NCLB, Medicare prescription drugs, reorganizing the government in the wake of 9/11, combating disease and poverty in Africa, tax cuts, and fighting two wars. He also has a number of important but lower-profile accomplishments, such as bankruptcy reform, class action reform, and the deployment of a ballistic missile defense system. Bush's record of accomplishments compares favorably to that of his immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton. Clinton's signature accomplishment was welfare reform, and he had a signature non-achievement in HillaryCare. By comparison, Bush failed to get anything done on immigration and Social Security privatization. Even so, Bush clearly took on more and got more done.
Bush also scores well on the fourth criteria: taking on the major problems of the day. Bush directed most of his attention and energies to the struggle against Islamic extremism, which is without question one of the biggest problems the country faced during his time in office (if not the biggest). Bush never played small-ball and was perhaps the antithesis of the caretaker-style presidents America had during much of the 19th Century. Not to pick on Bill Clinton, but so much of his presidency was spent on impeachment and various scandals, squabbling with Newt Gingrich, the failed health care program, and small-ball programs like midnight basketball, it seems those are the things he is most remembered for. Whether you appreciate him or not, Bush will be remembered for his handling of major substantive issues such as 9/11 and Iraq.
A third area in which Bush scores particularly well is on the question of enhancing the stature and dignity of the office. Bush was a strong president who was willing to make unpopular decisions. His critics complained of an "imperial presidency" and accused him of expanding presidential powers beyond the limits of the Constitution. Fair to say, presidents who have been accused of acting like a dictator, e.g., Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, have fared better in the judgment of history than presidents who were regarded as weak, e.g., Buchanan, Taft, Carter, Bush 41. George W. Bush has never been accused of being a "weak" president.
In addition to being a "strong" president, Bush deserves credit for avoiding any personal scandal and for never, to my memory, engaging in petty, personal politics. He treated his opponents with respect and class, despite rarely being repaid in kind.
Thus it appears that on at least three of the five stated criteria, Bush scores fairly high. The remaining two, however, present a great deal more difficulty.
The first of these remaining criteria asks whether the president's achievements were consequential and lasting, or whether they will prove to be of minor or only temporary significance. The obvious answer is that it's too early to tell. However, Bush may indeed have left a lasting mark in a number of ways. First, he redefined Islamofascist terrorism as a serious national security threat, rather than a mere law enforcement concern. Bush took a lot of grief for labeling the struggle a "War on Terror." Some critics thought that formulation portended the sort of bureaucratic dog-and-pony show we've seen in the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty. But Bush ran the War on Terror like a real war, not a p.r. campaign. He mobilized the government, gathered intelligence, and sent troops overseas to kill bad guys. It was a deadly serious business and it accomplished real results. Because of this, it's hard to imagine Obama or his successors closing down the operation anytime soon.
Part of Bush's vision for combating international terrorism included a new Grand Strategy for the U.S.: the spreading of democracy and liberty around the world as a means of neutralizing or marginalizing would-be terrorists. Bush actively pursued this strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, an experiment Obama is unlikely to repeat anywhere else. But the fact that Obama won't, for example, send troops to "liberate" Iran doesn't necessary signal an abandonment of this aspect of the Bush Doctrine. Although the Left is fond of caricaturing Bush as an egotistical loose cannon recklessly demanding other countries become "just like us," the fact remains that freedom and democracy may be the best medicine the civilized world has against violent extremism. Future presidents will likely recognize this and conduct their foreign policies accordingly, whether or not they credit Bush for the inspiration.
Finally, we come to the most controversial part of the analysis: whether the president's policies were ultimately good or bad for the country. The answer to this question obviously depends on the answerer's own ideology and policy preferences. There are serious people even today who consider Lincoln a terrible president for answering the movement of southern states toward secession with violence. With the possible exception of Gerald Ford, one has to go back at least as far as Truman to find a president largely admired across the ideological spectrum (although Harry's growing popularity with conservatives is perhaps at the expense of his popularity with liberals).
Because of the ideological component, it seems silly to expect consensus on the question of whether a president's policies were good or bad for the country. Moreover, there is the problem of not knowing how events would have played out had the president chosen a different course from what he did. One way to get around this problem is to consider whether future presidents (or generations) ultimately decided to reaffirm or to reject the president's policies, and if so, with what results. An example of reaffirmation might be the Republicans' refusal to try to dismantle New Deal programs during the post-war era. An example of rejection might be Reagan's refusal to go along with the Cold War policies of detente and arms reductions, but instead take a hard line against the Soviets.
In Bush's case, it seems unlikely Mr. Obama or future leaders will seek to undo many of the things he has done as president, except perhaps symbolically. Obama will eventually close Guantanamo, but that should be of little real consequence. He will remove troops from Iraq, but that would have happened under Bush anyway. He will put more troops into Afghanistan, thus essentially reaffirming Bush's decision to go to war there. The FISA controversy has already been addressed legislatively; Bush signed the bill and Obama supported it. Obama will probably try to mollify his supporters on the "torture" issue by rejecting Bush's "harsh interrogation" policy. However, much of that will be symbolic as detainees are no longer being waterboarded anyway. Obama's clearly not going to undo the sweeping reorganization of government to address the terror threat. It seems doubtful he would take down the missile shield. He won't slash aid to Africa. Perhaps he will repeal NCLB, but I would question whether that makes sense politically. He won't kill the Medicare prescription drug benefit unless it is done in order to make way for a more sweeping health care program that would include prescription medications. He may not let the Bush tax cuts expire until after the economy is moving again.
Don't get me wrong. There will be a lot of changes throughout the government marking the handover of power from a Republican to a Democratic administration. My point is simply that there is unlikely to be a wholesale effort to dismantle the substantive legacy of the Bush administration. In particular, it seems absurd to suggest Obama will seek a restoration of the pre-9/11 approach to counterterrorism and homeland security. More likely, Obama will look for ways to make symbolic breaks from Bush -- closing Gitmo, for example -- while leaving much of his actual accomplishments intact.
My proposed criteria for evaluating presidents does not particular notice of economic conditions during a president's administration, which I'm sure some people would argue let's Bush off the hook for the current economic crisis we are facing. Generally speaking, however, presidents don't have enough influence over the health of the economy to justify evaluating them on economic conditions. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and is leaving one for Obama. While I believe Bush's tax cuts helped revive the economy in the wake of the bursting of the dot.com bubble, I don't think he deserves a great deal of the credit or blame for economic conditions over the last six or seven years. I don't believe Bush should be blamed for the credit crisis that emerged last October, and I would note that the people claiming Bush is the worst president ever started making this claim well before the economy started falling apart.
Overall, it seems to me that Bush was far from the worst president we've ever had. In fact, he was at least an average president, probably better. He was very much a mixed bag in that he was a good executive decision-maker but an inept communicator. He infuriated people on both ends of the political spectrum, yet still managed to build a fairly impressive record of accomplishments. He clearly left a mark on America's foreign policy and national security infrastructure, and plainly succeeded in confronting his biggest challenge: the threat of terrorism in the U.S. I'll miss him, and I wouldn't be surprised if the country starts to miss him before too long.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Happy New Year!
I haven't blogged for a while, opting to focus on hot stove baseball and only occasionally ceding attention to the news of the world. I think I've been awaiting the moment when seemingly random and disconnected pieces of news, like notes tapped on a distant piano, form a recognizable pattern -- a melody -- and the randomness of it all suddenly disappears.
The music analogy is not entirely on point. What I'm talking about, and what I was hoping to discern from the cascade of events surrounding the Obama transition, is better described as a narrative. History is happening right now, but we are only privy to a small part of it. We learn about certain events or happenings through the distorted lens of the media, and we do our best to extrapolate from those data points the larger story that is unfolding. Or at least I do.
For those of us who crave a narrative (and who therefore assume history, in fact, is supposed to make sense), life becomes somewhat easier during presidential election years. For that is the time when the candidates and their followers make their narratives most explicit. For example, Democratic opinion-makers generally portrayed Bush as a reckless imbecile who was responsible for destroying America's moral standing in the world. This offered people a convenient framework for understanding the events of the last eight years, which they could supplement with their own observations and suppositions.
It's worth pointing out that, the more one knows, the more complicated the task of finding and adhering to a satisfactory narrative becomes. A person who knows next to nothing about current events could choose to believe either that Bush is a reckless imbecile or that he's been a great defender of freedom. For a person lacking a reasonable grasp of the facts, there would be no occasion for information to come up tending to dispel the chosen narrative. They can literally believe whatever they want. For people who are very well informed, on the other hand, it takes a lot more care and thinking in order to formulate a narrative, because they will be constantly forced to deal with facts and opinions that don't seem to fit. Ultimately, dealing with such inconsistencies is likely to involve accepting that the truth is not as clear or as simple as initially imagined. A person who sets out believing FDR was a near god-like leader is going to have to reconsider that appraisal once confronted with the reality of Court-packing or the internment of Japanese-Americans, for example. Ultimately, such a person is likely to qualify their praise for Roosevelt or even change his or her mind completely.
Getting back to more recent events, I am forced to revisit my pre-election assessment of Barack Obama. As various previous blogposts will attest, I came to see Barack Obama as something of a crypto-socialist who was using America's hunger for inspiration as a means to obscure his true leftist agenda. In my view, there was plenty of evidence for both strands of this narrative, i.e., that Obama was indeed a man of the Left, and that his popular support was mainly a product of emotionalism and symbolism.
Happily, I can now say nothing has happened since the election to sustain the impression that Obama is a radical leftist. In fact, if he is a crypto-anything, it seems most likely he's a crypto-centrist. There is simply no way to interpret his actions during the transition in a manner consistent with those of a true leftist.
Start with his appointments. He retained Bush's Defense Secretary, tapped Hillary for State, and assembled an economic team Wall Street wizards can appreciate. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is a solid liberal but also a strong supporter of Israel.
Beyond these personnel decisions, Obama has expressed sympathy for Israel's attack against Hamas and seems completely uninterested in pursuing legal actions against Bush Administration officials involved in the "torture" controversy. He has expressly downgraded the prospects for implementing major portions of the sweeping domestic agenda he outlined during the campaign due to the exigencies of the present economic crisis (which he apparently thinks will be of long duration). He has nominally included a host of tax cuts in his stimulus plan (although there is reason to question the characterization of those measures as tax cuts). On top of all that, his attitude toward Bush and the outgoing administration appears to be one of at least token respect. He has done nothing to fan the attitude of contempt toward Bush that liberals have stoked over the last eight years. No wonder various quarters of the left seem dazed and confused.
I am by no means ready to climb out on a limb and declare that the conventional, centrist Obama I've perceived over the last eight weeks or so is the real Obama. (Hell, he's not even president yet!) But the narrative to which I previously adhered no longer fits. For now at least, what seems to make the most sense goes something like this:
Obama doesn't have a clear political ideology. He is a thoughtful, introspective guy who became fixated on issues of race and personal identity due to his unconventional background and upbringing. In his lifelong search for a way to fit in, he has gravitated toward people with strong leftist views, but has never internalized leftist doctrine as a practical or effective governing philosophy. He is comfortable in leftist circles, but he doesn't really buy into the program. In this sense, he is not unlike professed Catholics who go to Mass and appreciate the company of other Catholics, but who don't truly believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
Obama's sentimental attachment to leftism made it easy for him to attract the support of both inner-city blacks and upper class whites in Chicago. His looks and oratorical skills made him a phenomenon. Finally, sheer luck placed him in a position to enter the national stage at a time when the country was practically begging for the chance to elect someone who had opposed the war in Iraq.
Even with all he had going for him, it still took a brilliant campaign, a flawed Republican opponent, and a major financial crisis to put Obama into the White House. Looking back, however, Obama was never required to really reveal his true ideological colors, whatever they were. Liberals were encouraged to believe he was one of them. Moderates and conservatives were given assurances that they had nothing to fear.
Now that Obama has been elected, it appears to be the lefties who are holding the short straw. The new president is not a taller version of Dennis Kucinich. He may be nothing more than a less roguish version of Bill Clinton. In fact, one cannot rule out the possibility that he's a younger and hipper version of George H.W. Bush.
An Obama who is not innately driven to pursue a particular ideological agenda is more likely to be motivated by a fear of spectacular failure in office rather than a hunger for spectacular success. I don't think I have ever heard anyone make this point, but if Obama is really invested in the idea of being the first black president, he may well feel a lot of internal pressure not to ruin the prospects for future black candidates by making a total botch of it. The same notion arguably applies to his youth and inexperience: perhaps he feels the need simply to prove he can handle the job, whatever that means in terms of taking the country in a particular direction. In short, it is easy to imagine that Obama's top priority is simply to not screw up royally.
Obama's actions to date, as discussed above, would seem consistent with that objective. For one thing, they appear calculated to neutralize his opponents. Republicans have lowered their daggers completely. Apart from their stiffening resistance to bailouts -- a position that started to take hold before the election -- the GOP is more focused on charting a new strategy for attracting voters than in giving Obama a hard time. And as for potential critics within his party, Obama could scarcely have done more since the election to woo fans of the Clintons than if he had invited Bill and Hillary to move back into the White House with him.
If my hypothesis is correct, and Obama is really underneath it all a conventional Washington moderate who is more interested in keeping the wheels on the country than in delivering radical change, it does not mean he will consistently disappoint the liberals who so passionately supported him over Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obama is going to need to make good on at least some of his promises to them. His impending presidential order to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is a timely example, and may demonstrate the limits of Obama's ability to abandon commitments made to his liberal base during the campaign. Those kinds of discrete actions, however, will seem like thin gruel to frustrated lefties who are aching for a truly transformative epoch in American politics.
As I said, this is not a final verdict on Obama's political identity, but merely a new working theory. As events unfold, they will tend to either confirm or cast doubt on this hypothesis. Hopefully, they will confirm it, because the Barack Obama I am describing today is not nearly as scary as the one I thought existed a few months ago.
The music analogy is not entirely on point. What I'm talking about, and what I was hoping to discern from the cascade of events surrounding the Obama transition, is better described as a narrative. History is happening right now, but we are only privy to a small part of it. We learn about certain events or happenings through the distorted lens of the media, and we do our best to extrapolate from those data points the larger story that is unfolding. Or at least I do.
For those of us who crave a narrative (and who therefore assume history, in fact, is supposed to make sense), life becomes somewhat easier during presidential election years. For that is the time when the candidates and their followers make their narratives most explicit. For example, Democratic opinion-makers generally portrayed Bush as a reckless imbecile who was responsible for destroying America's moral standing in the world. This offered people a convenient framework for understanding the events of the last eight years, which they could supplement with their own observations and suppositions.
It's worth pointing out that, the more one knows, the more complicated the task of finding and adhering to a satisfactory narrative becomes. A person who knows next to nothing about current events could choose to believe either that Bush is a reckless imbecile or that he's been a great defender of freedom. For a person lacking a reasonable grasp of the facts, there would be no occasion for information to come up tending to dispel the chosen narrative. They can literally believe whatever they want. For people who are very well informed, on the other hand, it takes a lot more care and thinking in order to formulate a narrative, because they will be constantly forced to deal with facts and opinions that don't seem to fit. Ultimately, dealing with such inconsistencies is likely to involve accepting that the truth is not as clear or as simple as initially imagined. A person who sets out believing FDR was a near god-like leader is going to have to reconsider that appraisal once confronted with the reality of Court-packing or the internment of Japanese-Americans, for example. Ultimately, such a person is likely to qualify their praise for Roosevelt or even change his or her mind completely.
Getting back to more recent events, I am forced to revisit my pre-election assessment of Barack Obama. As various previous blogposts will attest, I came to see Barack Obama as something of a crypto-socialist who was using America's hunger for inspiration as a means to obscure his true leftist agenda. In my view, there was plenty of evidence for both strands of this narrative, i.e., that Obama was indeed a man of the Left, and that his popular support was mainly a product of emotionalism and symbolism.
Happily, I can now say nothing has happened since the election to sustain the impression that Obama is a radical leftist. In fact, if he is a crypto-anything, it seems most likely he's a crypto-centrist. There is simply no way to interpret his actions during the transition in a manner consistent with those of a true leftist.
Start with his appointments. He retained Bush's Defense Secretary, tapped Hillary for State, and assembled an economic team Wall Street wizards can appreciate. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is a solid liberal but also a strong supporter of Israel.
Beyond these personnel decisions, Obama has expressed sympathy for Israel's attack against Hamas and seems completely uninterested in pursuing legal actions against Bush Administration officials involved in the "torture" controversy. He has expressly downgraded the prospects for implementing major portions of the sweeping domestic agenda he outlined during the campaign due to the exigencies of the present economic crisis (which he apparently thinks will be of long duration). He has nominally included a host of tax cuts in his stimulus plan (although there is reason to question the characterization of those measures as tax cuts). On top of all that, his attitude toward Bush and the outgoing administration appears to be one of at least token respect. He has done nothing to fan the attitude of contempt toward Bush that liberals have stoked over the last eight years. No wonder various quarters of the left seem dazed and confused.
I am by no means ready to climb out on a limb and declare that the conventional, centrist Obama I've perceived over the last eight weeks or so is the real Obama. (Hell, he's not even president yet!) But the narrative to which I previously adhered no longer fits. For now at least, what seems to make the most sense goes something like this:
Obama doesn't have a clear political ideology. He is a thoughtful, introspective guy who became fixated on issues of race and personal identity due to his unconventional background and upbringing. In his lifelong search for a way to fit in, he has gravitated toward people with strong leftist views, but has never internalized leftist doctrine as a practical or effective governing philosophy. He is comfortable in leftist circles, but he doesn't really buy into the program. In this sense, he is not unlike professed Catholics who go to Mass and appreciate the company of other Catholics, but who don't truly believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
Obama's sentimental attachment to leftism made it easy for him to attract the support of both inner-city blacks and upper class whites in Chicago. His looks and oratorical skills made him a phenomenon. Finally, sheer luck placed him in a position to enter the national stage at a time when the country was practically begging for the chance to elect someone who had opposed the war in Iraq.
Even with all he had going for him, it still took a brilliant campaign, a flawed Republican opponent, and a major financial crisis to put Obama into the White House. Looking back, however, Obama was never required to really reveal his true ideological colors, whatever they were. Liberals were encouraged to believe he was one of them. Moderates and conservatives were given assurances that they had nothing to fear.
Now that Obama has been elected, it appears to be the lefties who are holding the short straw. The new president is not a taller version of Dennis Kucinich. He may be nothing more than a less roguish version of Bill Clinton. In fact, one cannot rule out the possibility that he's a younger and hipper version of George H.W. Bush.
An Obama who is not innately driven to pursue a particular ideological agenda is more likely to be motivated by a fear of spectacular failure in office rather than a hunger for spectacular success. I don't think I have ever heard anyone make this point, but if Obama is really invested in the idea of being the first black president, he may well feel a lot of internal pressure not to ruin the prospects for future black candidates by making a total botch of it. The same notion arguably applies to his youth and inexperience: perhaps he feels the need simply to prove he can handle the job, whatever that means in terms of taking the country in a particular direction. In short, it is easy to imagine that Obama's top priority is simply to not screw up royally.
Obama's actions to date, as discussed above, would seem consistent with that objective. For one thing, they appear calculated to neutralize his opponents. Republicans have lowered their daggers completely. Apart from their stiffening resistance to bailouts -- a position that started to take hold before the election -- the GOP is more focused on charting a new strategy for attracting voters than in giving Obama a hard time. And as for potential critics within his party, Obama could scarcely have done more since the election to woo fans of the Clintons than if he had invited Bill and Hillary to move back into the White House with him.
If my hypothesis is correct, and Obama is really underneath it all a conventional Washington moderate who is more interested in keeping the wheels on the country than in delivering radical change, it does not mean he will consistently disappoint the liberals who so passionately supported him over Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obama is going to need to make good on at least some of his promises to them. His impending presidential order to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is a timely example, and may demonstrate the limits of Obama's ability to abandon commitments made to his liberal base during the campaign. Those kinds of discrete actions, however, will seem like thin gruel to frustrated lefties who are aching for a truly transformative epoch in American politics.
As I said, this is not a final verdict on Obama's political identity, but merely a new working theory. As events unfold, they will tend to either confirm or cast doubt on this hypothesis. Hopefully, they will confirm it, because the Barack Obama I am describing today is not nearly as scary as the one I thought existed a few months ago.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Obama finds lump of coal in his Fitzmas stocking
Barack Obama can't be too pleased with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and arrest of Governor Rod Blagojevich and an aide on corruption charges.
A quick read of the U.S. Attorney's press release discloses allegations of corruption that are almost mind-blowing in their depth and scope. According to investigators, Blagojevich was conducting a veritable auction of the president-elect's former U.S. Senate seat, which he resigned last month and which Illinois law empowers the sitting governor to fill pending the next election. (Remind me why Obama decided to resign so quickly?) The governor was evidently basing his decision on whom to appoint according to which candidate could deliver up the most attractive combination of goodies for himself and his wife. Blagojevich made it clear that he wanted money for himself and his campaign coffers and a job that would keep him politically viable. He was also worried about the ongoing criminal investigation and for some reason thought appointing himself to the Senate seat might prove useful in expanding his future legal defense options.
The feds' takedown of Blagojevich hits a little too close to home for Obama. First, it's a reminder of the swamp of corruption from which Obama's hope-and-changey movement paradoxically arose. Second, and more immediately, it appears that Blagojevich sought to include the incoming administration in the wheeling and dealing over the vacant Senate seat. The press release outlines a three-way scheme whereby the governor would appoint a candidate favored by the president-elect, a union would create a high-paying position for Blagojevich, and the new administration would pay back the union at some later date. While it's not alleged that Obama knew about, let alone would have gone along with, such a deal, the fact that it was even being discussed suggests that Obama may not be regarded as Mr. Clean within Illinois political circles.
Obama connections aside, it's just not a very pretty picture. For example, Blagojevich was allegedly trying to get the editorial staff of the Tribune fired as a condition for securing state assistance in helping the cash-strapped newspaper's parent company in selling the Cubs. Evidently, "pay for play" was pretty much SOP in Blagojevich's administration.
This is a serious mess for Illinois and the kind of trouble back home Obama doesn't need. It will be interesting to see how well Obama can distance himself from it and whether, indeed, Blagojevich will let him.
A quick read of the U.S. Attorney's press release discloses allegations of corruption that are almost mind-blowing in their depth and scope. According to investigators, Blagojevich was conducting a veritable auction of the president-elect's former U.S. Senate seat, which he resigned last month and which Illinois law empowers the sitting governor to fill pending the next election. (Remind me why Obama decided to resign so quickly?) The governor was evidently basing his decision on whom to appoint according to which candidate could deliver up the most attractive combination of goodies for himself and his wife. Blagojevich made it clear that he wanted money for himself and his campaign coffers and a job that would keep him politically viable. He was also worried about the ongoing criminal investigation and for some reason thought appointing himself to the Senate seat might prove useful in expanding his future legal defense options.
The feds' takedown of Blagojevich hits a little too close to home for Obama. First, it's a reminder of the swamp of corruption from which Obama's hope-and-changey movement paradoxically arose. Second, and more immediately, it appears that Blagojevich sought to include the incoming administration in the wheeling and dealing over the vacant Senate seat. The press release outlines a three-way scheme whereby the governor would appoint a candidate favored by the president-elect, a union would create a high-paying position for Blagojevich, and the new administration would pay back the union at some later date. While it's not alleged that Obama knew about, let alone would have gone along with, such a deal, the fact that it was even being discussed suggests that Obama may not be regarded as Mr. Clean within Illinois political circles.
Obama connections aside, it's just not a very pretty picture. For example, Blagojevich was allegedly trying to get the editorial staff of the Tribune fired as a condition for securing state assistance in helping the cash-strapped newspaper's parent company in selling the Cubs. Evidently, "pay for play" was pretty much SOP in Blagojevich's administration.
This is a serious mess for Illinois and the kind of trouble back home Obama doesn't need. It will be interesting to see how well Obama can distance himself from it and whether, indeed, Blagojevich will let him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
