Did I say "devastating"? I meant "lame."
Following a momentary break in the campaign in recognition of the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Obama is coming out swinging, or so says his campaign manager, David Plouffe: "Today is the first day of the rest of the campaign. . . . We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks and we will take the fight to him, but we will do it on the big issues that matter to the American people."
Evidently, Obama thinks McCain's inability to send email is a big issue to the American people. Who is really out of touch here?
Not that it matters, but it appears McCain is far from alone in his status as a computer illiterate. Something like one in three heads of household have never created a computer document. One in five have never used the internet.
More important, exactly who is that comprise the majority of the computer illiterates? I would suspect that set includes a lot of older women, a lot of blue collar workers, and a lot of rural folk -- precisely the groups with whom Obama is having trouble connecting.
Even people who rely heavily on email and other computer tools in their daily lives are going to be turned off by the rank elitism and ageism implicit in this silly attack.
Is this really what Obama's campaign means when it talks about sharpening its attacks on John McCain?
Unbelievable.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Lipstick, etc.
The notion has taken hold in liberal circles that John McCain's exploitation of the lipstick-on-a-pig riff and other Obama gaffes denotes some kind of deep character flaw that disqualifies Big Mac from the presidency. Obama's campaign manager went so far as to suggest McCain lacks "honor." I think that's a serious over-reaction. I don't think 55-odd days is enough time to sell America on the idea that McCain's a lying bastard. (Just think of all the nice things the Dems were saying about McCain at their convention!) They shouldn't try to personalize it to McCain. They should instead argue that, despite McCain's image as a maverick, "his campaign is in the grips of the same kind of business-as-usual attack politics that Republicans have become associated with."
As for the lipstick comment itself, however, its clear to me that Obama meant it as a dig against Sarah Palin. Granted, he didn't coin the phrase "like putting lipstick on a pig," but that's not the point. In the continuing afterglow of Palin's acceptance speech, any derisive mention of lipstick by Obama or his people is going to sound like an allusion to her. I can't believe Obama didn't make that connection. Clearly, the audience present at the rally did, judging from their reaction.
The main reason to think this was intentional, however, is Obama's reaction since the controversy erupted. If his reference to lipstick were truly "innocent," then I would expect him to fall all over himself in making his apologies to Palin. I mean, why wouldn't he just say, "Oh jeez, that's not what I meant at all. My bad. My apologies to Gov. Palin for any misunderstanding." Controversy over. The fact he didn't do this, but instead felt the need to defend his use of the expression, suggests to me that these weren't "just words" to Barack Obama. He felt invested in this choice of words. The reason for that, I believe, is that Obama understood the double entendre, he liked it, and he thought he was being so clever in turning the lipstick thing into an attack on Palin, he would get away with it even if it did seem a little naughty. So when people started to react to the line in horror instead of amusement, his impulse was notably defensive. Again, an innocent person realizing that the comment was being misinterpreted would have been mortified by the reaction and done whatever they could to disavow the negative connotation. Not Barack. He has reacted by trying to turn this into an attack against McCain and the media for creating a made-up controversy. I find that very revealing.
As for the lipstick comment itself, however, its clear to me that Obama meant it as a dig against Sarah Palin. Granted, he didn't coin the phrase "like putting lipstick on a pig," but that's not the point. In the continuing afterglow of Palin's acceptance speech, any derisive mention of lipstick by Obama or his people is going to sound like an allusion to her. I can't believe Obama didn't make that connection. Clearly, the audience present at the rally did, judging from their reaction.
The main reason to think this was intentional, however, is Obama's reaction since the controversy erupted. If his reference to lipstick were truly "innocent," then I would expect him to fall all over himself in making his apologies to Palin. I mean, why wouldn't he just say, "Oh jeez, that's not what I meant at all. My bad. My apologies to Gov. Palin for any misunderstanding." Controversy over. The fact he didn't do this, but instead felt the need to defend his use of the expression, suggests to me that these weren't "just words" to Barack Obama. He felt invested in this choice of words. The reason for that, I believe, is that Obama understood the double entendre, he liked it, and he thought he was being so clever in turning the lipstick thing into an attack on Palin, he would get away with it even if it did seem a little naughty. So when people started to react to the line in horror instead of amusement, his impulse was notably defensive. Again, an innocent person realizing that the comment was being misinterpreted would have been mortified by the reaction and done whatever they could to disavow the negative connotation. Not Barack. He has reacted by trying to turn this into an attack against McCain and the media for creating a made-up controversy. I find that very revealing.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Palin's first "gaffe"?
The liberal blogosphere, via the Huffington Post, is calling Sarah Palin's comments today about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac her first "gaffe." I call this an example of wishful thinking.
I would define a gaffe as a statement by a politician that is either plainly, embarrassingly wrong or a statement by a politician that's true but reveals but revealing in an embarrassing way. An example of the first type would be Gerald Ford's insistence that Poland wasn't under Soviet domination. An example of the second type would be Reagan Budget Director David Stockman's suggestion that the administration fiscal policies were all based on guesswork.
Sarah Palin's alleged gaffe? Stating that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." Supposedly, this shows an embarrassing lack of knowledge on her part, because the FNMA and FHLMC do not receive direct taxpayer support. The problem for those who want to turn this into a gaffe, however, is that the statement comes on the same day it was announced that taxpayers will be bailing out the two mortgage giants to the tune of over $100 billion.
Even pre-bailout, Palin's statement seems pretty defensible. The federal government is the ultimate guarantor of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's solvency. Thus, these entities represent a huge potential liability for taxpayers, a fact which I assume ultimately affects the cost at which the federal government can borrow money to finance deficits.
Palin may have been wrong in some technical sense, but try explaining that to the average voter staring at a massive bailout.
I would define a gaffe as a statement by a politician that is either plainly, embarrassingly wrong or a statement by a politician that's true but reveals but revealing in an embarrassing way. An example of the first type would be Gerald Ford's insistence that Poland wasn't under Soviet domination. An example of the second type would be Reagan Budget Director David Stockman's suggestion that the administration fiscal policies were all based on guesswork.
Sarah Palin's alleged gaffe? Stating that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." Supposedly, this shows an embarrassing lack of knowledge on her part, because the FNMA and FHLMC do not receive direct taxpayer support. The problem for those who want to turn this into a gaffe, however, is that the statement comes on the same day it was announced that taxpayers will be bailing out the two mortgage giants to the tune of over $100 billion.
Even pre-bailout, Palin's statement seems pretty defensible. The federal government is the ultimate guarantor of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's solvency. Thus, these entities represent a huge potential liability for taxpayers, a fact which I assume ultimately affects the cost at which the federal government can borrow money to finance deficits.
Palin may have been wrong in some technical sense, but try explaining that to the average voter staring at a massive bailout.
"My Muslim faith"
Barack Obama has implied that people associated with John McCain's campaign have been trying to advance rumors that Obama is a Muslim. Unfortunately, in the course of conceding to George Stephanopoulos that John McCain himself had not been a party to such a whispering campaign, Obama used the words "my Muslim faith." To make matters somewhat worse, Stephanopoulos interjected "your Christian faith," a correction which Obama immediately accepted, but which made no sense in context. Obama was saying that (in McCain's defense) McCain had not talked about his "Muslim faith." Obama clearly didn't mean say "my Christian faith," as there was no suggestion that McCain had spoken of Obama's Christian faith and, even if he had, it's not something for which McCain needed to be let off the hook. Possibly, Obama meant to say something like, "my alleged Muslim faith." Thus, the supposed correction was just as brain-dead as the original gaffe, impling that neither Obama nor Stephanopoulos were really paying attention to the words coming out of Obama's mouth.
The only reason a gaffe like this hurts Obama is that his, yes, connections to Islam are real and haven't been adequately explained. His attitude toward the issue has been, in effect, "Move along, nothing to see here," which may be true, but is hardly a satisfying answer to those genuinely concerned about the prospect of putting a Muslim or even former Muslim in the White House.
What are the connections? Essentially, they boil down to the fact that his father and stepfather were both Muslims, he lived in a Muslim country and attended what his own book characterizes as a "Muslim school" where he was taught the Koran. He was enrolled in that school, as well as an earlier Catholic school, as a Muslim. According to Obama, neither his father nor stepfather were particularly religious, and he gives the impression of not having been much for religion either as a schoolboy. Then again, at least one classmate remembers "Barry Soetero" as being a devout Muslim and seeming to take a great deal of enjoyment from the religion.
Obama also has Muslim relatives, including a brother whose conversion to Islam was discussed in some depth in his first memoir, "Dreams From My Father."
So what should we make of these "connections"? It seems to me that if his parents enrolled him in both a Catholic school and in a "Muslim school" as a Muslim, then that's how he should be categorized at that point in his life. Obviously, it's impossible to know the degree to which he internalized a Muslim identity, if at all. Nevertheless, Obama's claim that he has never been a Muslim seems to require us to believe that he was completely faking any allegiance to that faith. And why would he? Since it was evidently an option to enroll in the schools as a Christian, it is hard to understand why Obama would matriculate as a Muslim if he had no intention of adopting that faith (especially given Obama's claim that his stepfather was largely uninterested in religion).
I am also mindful of Obama's claim that he became a Christian around 1981, when he was about 20 years old. If that's when he became a Christian, what was he before? The suggestion, again, is that he simply had no religious identity as a child, but we apparently have nothing but Obama's word to indicate this is so. In this instance, it makes sense to be skeptical, since everyone seems to agree an acknowledgement by Obama that he was brought up as a Muslim during a portion of his childhood would be damaging to his political prospects. Clearly, it is in his interests to downplay his Muslim roots as much as possible, so his vague suggestions that he just wasn't that interested in Islam should be taken with a grain of salt.
Of course, there's a big difference between being a Muslim at present and having been raised as a Muslim during a few years of one's childhood. I have no doubt Obama is not a Muslim, emphasis on "is."
On the other hand, I don't think the fact that Obama is not currently a Muslim, or that being a Muslim is non-career enhancing for a modern American politician, automatically render a discussion of Obama's Muslim connections off-limits. People ought to be able to talk about biographical details of presidential candidates without being accused of trying to play on people's fears and prejudices. Even if Obama's religious background is irrelevant to his fitness for the presidency, that's no reason to prevent people from getting the facts.
One final thought: I think there is at least one valid reason for voters to want to consider Obama's religious background. I suspect that many Muslims around the world believe that Obama is of that faith. If so, this could encourage extremists to question the resolve of the U.S. to maintain an aggressive posture in the GWOT. They might assume that Obama would take a softer stance against terrorism. Some might even see his election as foretelling the eventual spread of Islam around the world. Since many on the left seem to think it's important to elect Obama in order to improve America's image in other countries, is it not relevant to consider what impression his election would have on Muslims?
The only reason a gaffe like this hurts Obama is that his, yes, connections to Islam are real and haven't been adequately explained. His attitude toward the issue has been, in effect, "Move along, nothing to see here," which may be true, but is hardly a satisfying answer to those genuinely concerned about the prospect of putting a Muslim or even former Muslim in the White House.
What are the connections? Essentially, they boil down to the fact that his father and stepfather were both Muslims, he lived in a Muslim country and attended what his own book characterizes as a "Muslim school" where he was taught the Koran. He was enrolled in that school, as well as an earlier Catholic school, as a Muslim. According to Obama, neither his father nor stepfather were particularly religious, and he gives the impression of not having been much for religion either as a schoolboy. Then again, at least one classmate remembers "Barry Soetero" as being a devout Muslim and seeming to take a great deal of enjoyment from the religion.
Obama also has Muslim relatives, including a brother whose conversion to Islam was discussed in some depth in his first memoir, "Dreams From My Father."
So what should we make of these "connections"? It seems to me that if his parents enrolled him in both a Catholic school and in a "Muslim school" as a Muslim, then that's how he should be categorized at that point in his life. Obviously, it's impossible to know the degree to which he internalized a Muslim identity, if at all. Nevertheless, Obama's claim that he has never been a Muslim seems to require us to believe that he was completely faking any allegiance to that faith. And why would he? Since it was evidently an option to enroll in the schools as a Christian, it is hard to understand why Obama would matriculate as a Muslim if he had no intention of adopting that faith (especially given Obama's claim that his stepfather was largely uninterested in religion).
I am also mindful of Obama's claim that he became a Christian around 1981, when he was about 20 years old. If that's when he became a Christian, what was he before? The suggestion, again, is that he simply had no religious identity as a child, but we apparently have nothing but Obama's word to indicate this is so. In this instance, it makes sense to be skeptical, since everyone seems to agree an acknowledgement by Obama that he was brought up as a Muslim during a portion of his childhood would be damaging to his political prospects. Clearly, it is in his interests to downplay his Muslim roots as much as possible, so his vague suggestions that he just wasn't that interested in Islam should be taken with a grain of salt.
Of course, there's a big difference between being a Muslim at present and having been raised as a Muslim during a few years of one's childhood. I have no doubt Obama is not a Muslim, emphasis on "is."
On the other hand, I don't think the fact that Obama is not currently a Muslim, or that being a Muslim is non-career enhancing for a modern American politician, automatically render a discussion of Obama's Muslim connections off-limits. People ought to be able to talk about biographical details of presidential candidates without being accused of trying to play on people's fears and prejudices. Even if Obama's religious background is irrelevant to his fitness for the presidency, that's no reason to prevent people from getting the facts.
One final thought: I think there is at least one valid reason for voters to want to consider Obama's religious background. I suspect that many Muslims around the world believe that Obama is of that faith. If so, this could encourage extremists to question the resolve of the U.S. to maintain an aggressive posture in the GWOT. They might assume that Obama would take a softer stance against terrorism. Some might even see his election as foretelling the eventual spread of Islam around the world. Since many on the left seem to think it's important to elect Obama in order to improve America's image in other countries, is it not relevant to consider what impression his election would have on Muslims?
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Palin Derangement Syndrome
It just dawned on me why Palin Derangement Syndrome already seems like a more severe strain of pathology than its related disorder, Bush Derangement Syndrome. In the case of both diseases, those afflicted have an irrational conviction that the Republican in question is a monster. In the case of PDS, however, they also believe that the monstrous nature of Palin will necessarily manifest itself in her personal or family life.
Clearly, this belief is unsupported by history. Nixon was a scoundrel, but you couldn't tell that from his personal life. In fact, I don't think you could tell from Hitler's personal life that he was a monster, at least in 1932. Why do Palin's enemies think that the dangers she supposedly poses to the lives of Americans will necessarily be revealed through a detailed examination of her personal and family life?
Clearly, this belief is unsupported by history. Nixon was a scoundrel, but you couldn't tell that from his personal life. In fact, I don't think you could tell from Hitler's personal life that he was a monster, at least in 1932. Why do Palin's enemies think that the dangers she supposedly poses to the lives of Americans will necessarily be revealed through a detailed examination of her personal and family life?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Palin Paradigm
Sarah Palin as compared to . . .
1. . . . Hillary Clinton. It's true there is "no comparison," as many angry Hillary supporters have been saying. But these people miss the point. It's not that HRC represents a more experienced or accomplished version of Palin, it's that they each represent a different style of (female) politician.
A friend once observed that professional women have only a limited number of archetypes on which to model their images if they want to be successful. In fact, I believe she claimed there were exactly three. One is to play the dumb sex-kitten. The second is to be harsh and humorless (rhymes with "witch"). The third is to be "one of the guys." I would argue that the image Hillary has adopted over the years falls mainly within the second category. In fact, this is pretty much the choice of a majority of female politicians of Hillary's generation: The need to be taken seriously is the paramount stylistic consideration. They come across as lawyerly (or businesslike) and serious. The Hollywood analogue would be Katherine Hepburn.
Palin appears to be the rare breed who falls into the "one of the guys" category. She's doesn't appear to be concerned about whether the male-dominated world will take her seriously. She's just who she is. In Hollywood terms, she's more of an Elaine Benes or Liz Lemon (sans neuroses) type.
(In case you're wondering, there are no "dumb sex-kittens" in American political life. You'd have to go to Italy to find that.)
2. . . . Ronald Reagan. There's something to that comparison, but let's not overdo it. Reagan and Palin share a value political trait: the ability to use humor and charm to repel an opponent's attacks. But Reagan had something else that made him formidable. Reagan had a set of ideas that would help define a major political movement. So far, at least, Palin embodies an approach to governance, but not a philosophy.
3. . . . Spiro Agnew. I bring this up only to make the point that Agnew was notoriously anti-elite-Washington media. Palin sounded the exact same theme last night in her acceptance speech. She said the media regards her as unqualified merely because she is not a part of the permanent Washington establishment. She may be right as far as that goes, but she needs to keep in mind that being outside the Washington establishment is also no automatic qualification for high office.
4. . . . Joe Biden. No contest. Palin makes "Lunchpail Joe" Biden look like stale meatloaf. Joe's bona fides as a regular blue-collar guy seem pathetically contrived as compared to this gun-toting lady and her snowmobiling husband. The good news is, Biden won't need to bring that lunchpail to the debate, because he's going to have his lunch handed to him.
5. . . . Barack Obama. It's an interesting juxtaposition. Obama is the former community organizer ostensibly running on behalf of the little guy. Sarah's naturalistic style and middle-class values, however, make Obama look haughty and pretentious by comparison. At some level, she seems to turn him into John Francois Kerry.
1. . . . Hillary Clinton. It's true there is "no comparison," as many angry Hillary supporters have been saying. But these people miss the point. It's not that HRC represents a more experienced or accomplished version of Palin, it's that they each represent a different style of (female) politician.
A friend once observed that professional women have only a limited number of archetypes on which to model their images if they want to be successful. In fact, I believe she claimed there were exactly three. One is to play the dumb sex-kitten. The second is to be harsh and humorless (rhymes with "witch"). The third is to be "one of the guys." I would argue that the image Hillary has adopted over the years falls mainly within the second category. In fact, this is pretty much the choice of a majority of female politicians of Hillary's generation: The need to be taken seriously is the paramount stylistic consideration. They come across as lawyerly (or businesslike) and serious. The Hollywood analogue would be Katherine Hepburn.
Palin appears to be the rare breed who falls into the "one of the guys" category. She's doesn't appear to be concerned about whether the male-dominated world will take her seriously. She's just who she is. In Hollywood terms, she's more of an Elaine Benes or Liz Lemon (sans neuroses) type.
(In case you're wondering, there are no "dumb sex-kittens" in American political life. You'd have to go to Italy to find that.)
2. . . . Ronald Reagan. There's something to that comparison, but let's not overdo it. Reagan and Palin share a value political trait: the ability to use humor and charm to repel an opponent's attacks. But Reagan had something else that made him formidable. Reagan had a set of ideas that would help define a major political movement. So far, at least, Palin embodies an approach to governance, but not a philosophy.
3. . . . Spiro Agnew. I bring this up only to make the point that Agnew was notoriously anti-elite-Washington media. Palin sounded the exact same theme last night in her acceptance speech. She said the media regards her as unqualified merely because she is not a part of the permanent Washington establishment. She may be right as far as that goes, but she needs to keep in mind that being outside the Washington establishment is also no automatic qualification for high office.
4. . . . Joe Biden. No contest. Palin makes "Lunchpail Joe" Biden look like stale meatloaf. Joe's bona fides as a regular blue-collar guy seem pathetically contrived as compared to this gun-toting lady and her snowmobiling husband. The good news is, Biden won't need to bring that lunchpail to the debate, because he's going to have his lunch handed to him.
5. . . . Barack Obama. It's an interesting juxtaposition. Obama is the former community organizer ostensibly running on behalf of the little guy. Sarah's naturalistic style and middle-class values, however, make Obama look haughty and pretentious by comparison. At some level, she seems to turn him into John Francois Kerry.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
On Presidential Experience
A couple of days ago, I offered some thoughts on the nature and level of experience needed for the office of Vice President. Continuing on that theme, I wanted to comment on the experience and skills needed for the presidency.
When talking about experience, it's important, I think, to distinguish that part of a person's background that can be characterized as "credentials." In other words, I would propose to look at a candidate's credentials, not as a synonym for experience, but as a separate component of experience. "Experience" would refer to everything the candidate has done in their life that may reflect on their capacity to serve as POTUS. "Credentials" are merely the objective achievements he or she has attained along the way. Barack Obama and Sarah Palin have somewhat similar credentials but, I would suggest, dramatically different kinds of experience. (By "similar credentials," I mean they're both first-term statewide officeholders with several years of prior experience in lower offices.)
Focusing now on the broader question of experience, it is clear that Obama and Palin have each taken a dramatically different route to get to their respective stations in public life. Obama's career has been mainly as an advocate of liberal-left social and economic policies on behalf of lower-income, urban blacks. He lacks any kind of executive experience -- which is to say, he's never actually run anything, except arguably his own campaigns for public office.
Sarah Palin's experience in the public arena has been not as an advocate for any particular group, but as a manager and executive dealing with the nuts and bolts of government. As such, she is bound to have much less of a record of positions on the hot-button issues of the day than Obama, who has spent most of his career in legislative posts where debate and advocacy are the main requirements of the job.
Obama's experience as an advocate would serve him well as president. One of the important aspects of the modern presidency is defining and promoting an agenda for America's security and prosperity. The ability to communicate, persuade, and build majorities for particular programs and policies is obviously key to a president's success in carrying out a legislative agenda. President Bush was successful in his first term because he was able to define and articulate a compelling vision for responding to the myriad of threats posed by international terrorism. On the other hand, he failed to demonstrate anything close to the same skill in marshaling support for initiatives such as immigration and social security form.
Of course, only part of a president's job involves policy advocacy. In many respects, as George Bush famously noted, the president is the "decider." He doesn't always need to obtain the approval of voters or the Congress before taking a particular course of action. This is most often the case in regard to foreign policy and in the administration of the executive branch (especially personnel decisions). By definition, these are instances in which the president is acting as an executive rather than as a de facto legislator.
There a number of skills or traits a presidential candidate should possess in order to be a good executive. For example, an understanding of what the government does and how it works is of paramount importance. The only thing that mitigates the importance of such understanding is the fact that, left to its own institutional devices, the government will continue to operate on a day to day basis whether or not the president pays attention to it. However, to the extent that a president seeks to tinker with the machinery of government in pursuit of some policy objective, it's imperative that he or she know what the hell they are doing.
There are no shortages of examples to use in making this point. To cite just one, a president may decide that, in order to cut government spending, it would be a good idea to reduce the size of the military. However, it's important for the president to realize that such a cut may make it difficult to increase the size of the military at a future date, because while you can recruit more enlisted personnel on fairly short notice, the effect of the intervening cuts will be to reduce the future supply of officers to lead the new troops to be added in the future. Government is a machine with many moving parts, and it is essential for any president who aspires to change the status quo to understand how the pieces all fit together.
Apart from mere knowledge, a president needs sound judgment in it many forms. Most critically, a president needs to be able to decide when it is necessary and appropriate to use military force. Deciding whether and how to respond to a perceived threat to the national interest is the central concern of the Commander-in-Chief.
I see nothing in Obama's background that would suggest that he has particular faith or confidence in the use of American military force for any purpose. He has no personal military background. He doesn't appear to have any significant friends or associates of a military bent. He opposed the war in Iraq. He opposed the surge, predicting it would not work. His expressions of support or concern for military families all seem to focus on the burdens the government has imposed on them, rather than on what they have achieved through the sacrifices they have made. Moreover, judging from his friendships with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, Obama appears at least sympathetic to the view that the U.S. military is a source of trouble in the world, rather than a tool for advancing the cause of peace and freedom.
An Obama supporter would likely rebut the foregoing observations by asserting that the use of military force in places like Iraq or Vietnam was a mistake, cost thousands of lives, and consumed billions of taxpayers' dollars that would have been better spent on domestic needs. Those are debatable arguments, but I think they ultimately miss the point. Assuming there are situations where military action is appropriate, a president should have the judgment to recognize those situations and decide on the proper form of military response. Possibly, Barack Obama has the capacity to do those things, but I'm aware of nothing in his experience that would lead to that conclusion. By contrast, John McCain, for example, (a) opposed President Reagan's decision to send U.S. Marines to Beirut, (b) supported the first Gulf War, and (c) advocated for the troop surge in Iraq that helped turn the tide of victory there. Thus, he has a record of sometimes supporting military action, sometimes opposing it, and sometimes supporting a different form of military action than the one being taken.
In fairness to Obama, sound judgment on military matters will sometimes entail opposing military action when others are in support. Thus, Obama would arguably deserve credit on this score for opposing the war in Iraq if we stipulate the war was a mistake (which I'm prepared to do only for the sake of argument). Even with that important stipulation, however, I don't believe Obama's opposition reflects well on his military judgment. First, his anti-war position was completely in keeping with the views of his supporters, and thus required no exercise of political courage. Second, his stated reasons for opposing the war, as set forth an October 2002 speech at an anti-war rally, portrayed the case for war in terms that can only be described as cartoonish. Specifically, Obama charactertured supporters of the war as "arm-chair, weekend warriors . . . [attempting] to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." Obama's resort to ad hominem attacks dispels any suggestion that his opposition to the war was the product of sound military judgment. Therefore, even if Obama was right about the war (again, debatable), there is no evidence he arrived at his position in a careful, serious fashion.
Another crucial area in which a president's judgment is tested is in the evaluation of people. Lincoln was about the least well-credentialed president in U.S. history. He had no formal education to speak of and his prior experience in public office was highlighted by a single term in the House of Representatives during the Polk administration. One thing he did have going for him was an impeccable ability to differentiate between the people he could rely on to do the things he needed to be done and those who needed to be watched carefully, if they were to be utilized at all. People like Generals Grant and Sherman and Secretaries Stanton and Seward operated with pretty much free rein, and deservedly so. On the other hand, Lincoln hovered over General McClellan the way a mother hovers over a toddler learning how to use scissors for the first time. Lincoln realized soon enough that McClellan, for all his obvious talents, was worthless to him as a commander, and moved on.
These days, a president's ability to size up a person's character, abilities, and motivations are unlikely to determine the survival of the Union, but it can still have an enormous effect on the success of an administration. Presidents have been all too often burned by the scandalous behavior of trusted associates. Subordinates with hidden agendas or unwarranted influence within the administration can lead the president down the wrong path or, even if the president is on the right path, undermine policies before they can bear fruit.
I think this aspect of presidential judgment deserves particular attention because, in my view, and that of many others, Barack Obama is an incredibly poor judge of people. Supposedly, he didn't realize until a couple months ago that Jeremiah Wright was a racist anti-American, or that Tony Rezko was a crook. He still doesn't seem to understand that Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and attempted murderer. If Obama can be friends with these people for years and not see that they are scoundrels, how can he be trusted to sort out the good guys from the bad guys when he's president?
From the standpoint of overall experience, Obama appears to be an extremely risky choice for president. He has no meaningful executive experience. Virtually all of his experience is in the area of advocacy, which is only a relatively small part of what a president does. He has no record of which I'm aware that would suggest that he would exercise sound judgment in the use of military force. He has not been in the Senate long enough to have accrued a depth of understanding as to the intricacies of the government. Finally, he appears to lack basic judgment in regard to people, even those who have played important roles in his personal and professional development.
Obama's experience pales in comparison to that of his opponent. As noted above, McCain has an extremely strong background in matters relating to the military and foreign policy, including executive experience as an officer in the Navy. Right or wrong, he taken a judicious approach to the use of military force, with no obvious bias either in favor or against the use of force. In terms of legislative skills, he has at times been so influential in shaping the national agenda as to seem to be operating a shadow presidency. Just in recent years, McCain has been at the forefront of such diverse issues as campaign finance reform, the fight over judicial nominations, immigration reform, and Iraq. Because of the range of issues he's taken on and his long tenure in Congress, there appear to be few, if any, areas of the federal government in which he lacks significant experience. He's fiercely independent and thus can be counted on to exercise real judgment rather than follow the party line. His POW experience demonstrates that he's a man of principle who values character. I would submit this makes him less likely to succumb to errors of judgment in assessing the makeup of those with whom he comes into contact. A guy who values good character in others is more likely to recognize it, or notice its absence, as compared to someone who assumes there are equal parts of good and bad in most people.
I have many quibbles with McCain from a substantive standpoint. In terms of experience, however, he could not be much better equipped to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. Obama, unfortunately, leaves a great deal to be desired.
When talking about experience, it's important, I think, to distinguish that part of a person's background that can be characterized as "credentials." In other words, I would propose to look at a candidate's credentials, not as a synonym for experience, but as a separate component of experience. "Experience" would refer to everything the candidate has done in their life that may reflect on their capacity to serve as POTUS. "Credentials" are merely the objective achievements he or she has attained along the way. Barack Obama and Sarah Palin have somewhat similar credentials but, I would suggest, dramatically different kinds of experience. (By "similar credentials," I mean they're both first-term statewide officeholders with several years of prior experience in lower offices.)
Focusing now on the broader question of experience, it is clear that Obama and Palin have each taken a dramatically different route to get to their respective stations in public life. Obama's career has been mainly as an advocate of liberal-left social and economic policies on behalf of lower-income, urban blacks. He lacks any kind of executive experience -- which is to say, he's never actually run anything, except arguably his own campaigns for public office.
Sarah Palin's experience in the public arena has been not as an advocate for any particular group, but as a manager and executive dealing with the nuts and bolts of government. As such, she is bound to have much less of a record of positions on the hot-button issues of the day than Obama, who has spent most of his career in legislative posts where debate and advocacy are the main requirements of the job.
Obama's experience as an advocate would serve him well as president. One of the important aspects of the modern presidency is defining and promoting an agenda for America's security and prosperity. The ability to communicate, persuade, and build majorities for particular programs and policies is obviously key to a president's success in carrying out a legislative agenda. President Bush was successful in his first term because he was able to define and articulate a compelling vision for responding to the myriad of threats posed by international terrorism. On the other hand, he failed to demonstrate anything close to the same skill in marshaling support for initiatives such as immigration and social security form.
Of course, only part of a president's job involves policy advocacy. In many respects, as George Bush famously noted, the president is the "decider." He doesn't always need to obtain the approval of voters or the Congress before taking a particular course of action. This is most often the case in regard to foreign policy and in the administration of the executive branch (especially personnel decisions). By definition, these are instances in which the president is acting as an executive rather than as a de facto legislator.
There a number of skills or traits a presidential candidate should possess in order to be a good executive. For example, an understanding of what the government does and how it works is of paramount importance. The only thing that mitigates the importance of such understanding is the fact that, left to its own institutional devices, the government will continue to operate on a day to day basis whether or not the president pays attention to it. However, to the extent that a president seeks to tinker with the machinery of government in pursuit of some policy objective, it's imperative that he or she know what the hell they are doing.
There are no shortages of examples to use in making this point. To cite just one, a president may decide that, in order to cut government spending, it would be a good idea to reduce the size of the military. However, it's important for the president to realize that such a cut may make it difficult to increase the size of the military at a future date, because while you can recruit more enlisted personnel on fairly short notice, the effect of the intervening cuts will be to reduce the future supply of officers to lead the new troops to be added in the future. Government is a machine with many moving parts, and it is essential for any president who aspires to change the status quo to understand how the pieces all fit together.
Apart from mere knowledge, a president needs sound judgment in it many forms. Most critically, a president needs to be able to decide when it is necessary and appropriate to use military force. Deciding whether and how to respond to a perceived threat to the national interest is the central concern of the Commander-in-Chief.
I see nothing in Obama's background that would suggest that he has particular faith or confidence in the use of American military force for any purpose. He has no personal military background. He doesn't appear to have any significant friends or associates of a military bent. He opposed the war in Iraq. He opposed the surge, predicting it would not work. His expressions of support or concern for military families all seem to focus on the burdens the government has imposed on them, rather than on what they have achieved through the sacrifices they have made. Moreover, judging from his friendships with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, Obama appears at least sympathetic to the view that the U.S. military is a source of trouble in the world, rather than a tool for advancing the cause of peace and freedom.
An Obama supporter would likely rebut the foregoing observations by asserting that the use of military force in places like Iraq or Vietnam was a mistake, cost thousands of lives, and consumed billions of taxpayers' dollars that would have been better spent on domestic needs. Those are debatable arguments, but I think they ultimately miss the point. Assuming there are situations where military action is appropriate, a president should have the judgment to recognize those situations and decide on the proper form of military response. Possibly, Barack Obama has the capacity to do those things, but I'm aware of nothing in his experience that would lead to that conclusion. By contrast, John McCain, for example, (a) opposed President Reagan's decision to send U.S. Marines to Beirut, (b) supported the first Gulf War, and (c) advocated for the troop surge in Iraq that helped turn the tide of victory there. Thus, he has a record of sometimes supporting military action, sometimes opposing it, and sometimes supporting a different form of military action than the one being taken.
In fairness to Obama, sound judgment on military matters will sometimes entail opposing military action when others are in support. Thus, Obama would arguably deserve credit on this score for opposing the war in Iraq if we stipulate the war was a mistake (which I'm prepared to do only for the sake of argument). Even with that important stipulation, however, I don't believe Obama's opposition reflects well on his military judgment. First, his anti-war position was completely in keeping with the views of his supporters, and thus required no exercise of political courage. Second, his stated reasons for opposing the war, as set forth an October 2002 speech at an anti-war rally, portrayed the case for war in terms that can only be described as cartoonish. Specifically, Obama charactertured supporters of the war as "arm-chair, weekend warriors . . . [attempting] to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." Obama's resort to ad hominem attacks dispels any suggestion that his opposition to the war was the product of sound military judgment. Therefore, even if Obama was right about the war (again, debatable), there is no evidence he arrived at his position in a careful, serious fashion.
Another crucial area in which a president's judgment is tested is in the evaluation of people. Lincoln was about the least well-credentialed president in U.S. history. He had no formal education to speak of and his prior experience in public office was highlighted by a single term in the House of Representatives during the Polk administration. One thing he did have going for him was an impeccable ability to differentiate between the people he could rely on to do the things he needed to be done and those who needed to be watched carefully, if they were to be utilized at all. People like Generals Grant and Sherman and Secretaries Stanton and Seward operated with pretty much free rein, and deservedly so. On the other hand, Lincoln hovered over General McClellan the way a mother hovers over a toddler learning how to use scissors for the first time. Lincoln realized soon enough that McClellan, for all his obvious talents, was worthless to him as a commander, and moved on.
These days, a president's ability to size up a person's character, abilities, and motivations are unlikely to determine the survival of the Union, but it can still have an enormous effect on the success of an administration. Presidents have been all too often burned by the scandalous behavior of trusted associates. Subordinates with hidden agendas or unwarranted influence within the administration can lead the president down the wrong path or, even if the president is on the right path, undermine policies before they can bear fruit.
I think this aspect of presidential judgment deserves particular attention because, in my view, and that of many others, Barack Obama is an incredibly poor judge of people. Supposedly, he didn't realize until a couple months ago that Jeremiah Wright was a racist anti-American, or that Tony Rezko was a crook. He still doesn't seem to understand that Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and attempted murderer. If Obama can be friends with these people for years and not see that they are scoundrels, how can he be trusted to sort out the good guys from the bad guys when he's president?
From the standpoint of overall experience, Obama appears to be an extremely risky choice for president. He has no meaningful executive experience. Virtually all of his experience is in the area of advocacy, which is only a relatively small part of what a president does. He has no record of which I'm aware that would suggest that he would exercise sound judgment in the use of military force. He has not been in the Senate long enough to have accrued a depth of understanding as to the intricacies of the government. Finally, he appears to lack basic judgment in regard to people, even those who have played important roles in his personal and professional development.
Obama's experience pales in comparison to that of his opponent. As noted above, McCain has an extremely strong background in matters relating to the military and foreign policy, including executive experience as an officer in the Navy. Right or wrong, he taken a judicious approach to the use of military force, with no obvious bias either in favor or against the use of force. In terms of legislative skills, he has at times been so influential in shaping the national agenda as to seem to be operating a shadow presidency. Just in recent years, McCain has been at the forefront of such diverse issues as campaign finance reform, the fight over judicial nominations, immigration reform, and Iraq. Because of the range of issues he's taken on and his long tenure in Congress, there appear to be few, if any, areas of the federal government in which he lacks significant experience. He's fiercely independent and thus can be counted on to exercise real judgment rather than follow the party line. His POW experience demonstrates that he's a man of principle who values character. I would submit this makes him less likely to succumb to errors of judgment in assessing the makeup of those with whom he comes into contact. A guy who values good character in others is more likely to recognize it, or notice its absence, as compared to someone who assumes there are equal parts of good and bad in most people.
I have many quibbles with McCain from a substantive standpoint. In terms of experience, however, he could not be much better equipped to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. Obama, unfortunately, leaves a great deal to be desired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
