The Washington Post takes a look at how Barack Obama’s religious policy is taking shape. To sum it up in three words: inclusion, inclusion, inclusion. In the new Obama administration, everybody’s got the president’s ear:
The last administration showed no interest in talking to a large chunk of the religious community," said Melissa Rogers, director of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. "We're already seeing change. . . . This administration, so far as I can see, is not making a similar mistake.
But the Religious Left is already getting antsy. Shouldn’t Obama be, you know, on their side? So what’s he doing cozying up to people like Rick Warren? At the same time, the Religious Right is watching Obama for the slightest misstep. They’re OK with him for now. They’ll bolt, though, at the first whiff of secularism.
Trying to appeal to both the Religious Right and Religious Left is a dangerous game. It’s like walking a tightrope. Over a pit of alligators. While juggling. And there’s no tightrope. Conservatives and liberals are intractable enough when it comes to politics. If you throw religion in there too, compromise isn’t just improbable, it’s nearly impossible.
My guess is that, as the warm and fuzzy afterglow of the Obama honeymoon wears off, the president will turn more and more to the socially activist Religious Left. The Religious Right has never been his friend. Despite plenty of talk during the election of Obama-voting evangelicals—or “Obangelicals,” if you will—McCain still won white evangelical Protestants 74%-24%.
Obama isn’t going to spurn a major part of his base in favor of a group that never supported him and most likely never will. We already got a hint of that with Obama’s repeal of Bush’s abortion gag rule policy. It was one of the first acts of the Obama presidency, and it got the expected reaction: pro-lifers howled and pro-choice groups cheered. Clearly, Obama’s not going to spend a lot of time catering to the Religious Right.
That doesn’t mean he’ll be doing the bidding of Jim Wallis and other leftist evangelicals, though. I think his move on abortion was less a slap at the Religious Right, and more of an investment in the Religious Left’s favor bank. He knows, at some point, he’s going to disappoint them. And when they come storming into the Oval Office, he can point back to that act and say, ‘See? Who said I never did anything for you?”
For now, though, he can afford to flirt with both left and right. They’re going to catch on eventually. But which of them would have the bad manners to spoil his honeymoon so soon?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Clean Up Duty
At first, I was going to file this Al Hunt column away in the cabinet in my brain labeled "REFLEXIVE BUSH-BASHING: DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY." But then I gave it another look, and though it certainly is Bush-bashing, it's anything but reflexive.
Whether or not you think history will vindicate 43--I'm of the mind that it will, but hey, what do I know?--its undeniable that right now, he's the second most unpopular person in the country. The most unpopular being, of course, his right-hand man Dick Cheney.
That set the bar awfully low for Obama. Could that be Bush's greatest failing? If he had been a bit more fiscally responsible, and if he had made his government a bit more transparent, I think the American people would be less willing to give Obama a four-year honeymoon.
Whether or not you think history will vindicate 43--I'm of the mind that it will, but hey, what do I know?--its undeniable that right now, he's the second most unpopular person in the country. The most unpopular being, of course, his right-hand man Dick Cheney.
That set the bar awfully low for Obama. Could that be Bush's greatest failing? If he had been a bit more fiscally responsible, and if he had made his government a bit more transparent, I think the American people would be less willing to give Obama a four-year honeymoon.
Impromptus
The only author I always--always--take time to read is National Review's Jay Nordlinger. Even when I don't have time to the assigned reading for classes, I always try to squeeze in his Impromptus. And he never disappoints, especially not today.
Why do I like reading Nordlinger so much? Can't say for sure, really. You can chalk it up to a short attention span; one of his impromptus is "long" if it goes for more than three paragraphs. Whenever I read another columnist, I always find myself feeling guilty if I skim, or if I stop reading before the end. Not so with Nordlinger!
But I'd like to think there are nobler reasons for liking him. His style, his grace, his way with language. The way he refuses to take politics seriously. That, I think, is one of the defining traits of a conservatism: a sort of elegant detachment from everyday politics. Maybe that's why we lose so much. But hey, I suppose it's worth it.
If you haven't got my message yet, let me repeat myself. Go read Jay Nordlinger. I'd say he's the new William F. Buckley, but he's rather up there in the years himself. So...let's say he's more like Buckley's twin brother.
Why do I like reading Nordlinger so much? Can't say for sure, really. You can chalk it up to a short attention span; one of his impromptus is "long" if it goes for more than three paragraphs. Whenever I read another columnist, I always find myself feeling guilty if I skim, or if I stop reading before the end. Not so with Nordlinger!
But I'd like to think there are nobler reasons for liking him. His style, his grace, his way with language. The way he refuses to take politics seriously. That, I think, is one of the defining traits of a conservatism: a sort of elegant detachment from everyday politics. Maybe that's why we lose so much. But hey, I suppose it's worth it.
If you haven't got my message yet, let me repeat myself. Go read Jay Nordlinger. I'd say he's the new William F. Buckley, but he's rather up there in the years himself. So...let's say he's more like Buckley's twin brother.
Gloomy Prediction
I don't want to bring anybody down, but this doesn't bode well for the GOP. Unless Bunning either gets his act together, or does the sane thing and decides to retire, he's going to lose this race. Mongiardo almost beat him last time, and that was when he was running as a complete unknown.
Now Bunning's six years older and, sad to see, seems to be six years further down the road to senility. And that's never a good thing when you're running for the Senate, unless your name happens to be Strom Thurmond.*
*Cheap shot. Sorry.
Now Bunning's six years older and, sad to see, seems to be six years further down the road to senility. And that's never a good thing when you're running for the Senate, unless your name happens to be Strom Thurmond.*
*Cheap shot. Sorry.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Mini-Review: The 10 Big Lies About America
Michael Medved’s “The Ten Big Lies About America” is an ambitious book. Medved, a conservative radio host, sets out to single-handedly undo two decades of revisionist history. He is an anti-iconoclast, intent on restoring a little bit of America’s lost luster. He comes, not to bury America, but to praise it to high heaven.
The book’s pugnacious subtitle, “Combating Destructive Distortions Our Nation,” sets the tone early on. Medved heaps scorn upon what he calls the “America bashers,” who peddle a message of “victimhood, powerlessness, guilt, and decline.” There’s plenty to be proud about in America, Medved writes, and he sets about proving it by debunking the titular ten myths.
There is little rhyme or reason in Medved’s books. He jumps from myth to myth willy-nilly, without any kind of clear organizing principle. One second, he’s attacking those who claim that “The founders intended a secular, not a Christian, nation.” Just a few pages later, he’s fulminating against the myth that “The power of big business hurts the country and oppresses the people.”
Then again, the book is not about the big picture. Medved is more concerned with the nitty-gritty details. He marshals an impressive list of facts to counter each and every myth, drawing on sources ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Drew Carey. Every chapter is loaded down with facts and figures, all bolstering Medved’s thesis that America is a uniquely great nation.
He begins at the beginning. The first myth on his hit list is that “America was founded on genocide against Native Americans.” Not true, says Medved. It was smallpox that wiped out the Indians, not bloodthirsty pilgrims. Having absolved America of its original sin, Medved then proceeds to tackle an even bigger challenge: the myth, as he puts it, that “The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.”
That chapter showcases the greatest strength of Medved’s book—and its greatest weakness. On the one hand, Medved persuasively argues that America was hardly the world’s only slave nation. He cites numbers to show that our nation imported far fewer slaves than did the sugar-growing nations of the Caribbean and South America, which chewed up boatloads of imported Africans.
Now for the weakness. At times, Medved gets carried away. He interprets any criticism of America as a myth, no matter how valid it might be. Yes, America was certainly far less guilty of slavery than, say, Brazil or Cuba. But does that completely wash away the sin of slavery? No, Medved writes, but he says it only grudgingly.
It’s hard to criticize an author for being overly passionate, though. Medved clearly believes combating these “destructive distortions” is a noble cause. America, he reminds us, is the “last, best hope” for the world. Rehabilitating America’s image is not just a matter of historical bookkeeping. It’s a sacred cause. America is indeed that “city on a hill,” and Medved is its self-proclaimed guardian.
The book’s pugnacious subtitle, “Combating Destructive Distortions Our Nation,” sets the tone early on. Medved heaps scorn upon what he calls the “America bashers,” who peddle a message of “victimhood, powerlessness, guilt, and decline.” There’s plenty to be proud about in America, Medved writes, and he sets about proving it by debunking the titular ten myths.
There is little rhyme or reason in Medved’s books. He jumps from myth to myth willy-nilly, without any kind of clear organizing principle. One second, he’s attacking those who claim that “The founders intended a secular, not a Christian, nation.” Just a few pages later, he’s fulminating against the myth that “The power of big business hurts the country and oppresses the people.”
Then again, the book is not about the big picture. Medved is more concerned with the nitty-gritty details. He marshals an impressive list of facts to counter each and every myth, drawing on sources ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Drew Carey. Every chapter is loaded down with facts and figures, all bolstering Medved’s thesis that America is a uniquely great nation.
He begins at the beginning. The first myth on his hit list is that “America was founded on genocide against Native Americans.” Not true, says Medved. It was smallpox that wiped out the Indians, not bloodthirsty pilgrims. Having absolved America of its original sin, Medved then proceeds to tackle an even bigger challenge: the myth, as he puts it, that “The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.”
That chapter showcases the greatest strength of Medved’s book—and its greatest weakness. On the one hand, Medved persuasively argues that America was hardly the world’s only slave nation. He cites numbers to show that our nation imported far fewer slaves than did the sugar-growing nations of the Caribbean and South America, which chewed up boatloads of imported Africans.
Now for the weakness. At times, Medved gets carried away. He interprets any criticism of America as a myth, no matter how valid it might be. Yes, America was certainly far less guilty of slavery than, say, Brazil or Cuba. But does that completely wash away the sin of slavery? No, Medved writes, but he says it only grudgingly.
It’s hard to criticize an author for being overly passionate, though. Medved clearly believes combating these “destructive distortions” is a noble cause. America, he reminds us, is the “last, best hope” for the world. Rehabilitating America’s image is not just a matter of historical bookkeeping. It’s a sacred cause. America is indeed that “city on a hill,” and Medved is its self-proclaimed guardian.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Senator Gillibrand
Politics, like sports, is always going to have its winners and losers. When you think about it, that's really what most pundits do: they crown the winners and damn the losers. And while I'm on that topic...Chris Cillizza takes a look at the winners and losers in the Curious Case of Caroline Kennedy.
Among the losers is--surprise!--Caroline Kennedy. What a flubbed opportunity for her; she seemed all set to become a US Senator without breaking a sweat. Then it all fell apart. It'll be interesting to see if she rebounds from this disappoint and stays involved in politics, or if she withdraws back into private life.
Among the losers is--surprise!--Caroline Kennedy. What a flubbed opportunity for her; she seemed all set to become a US Senator without breaking a sweat. Then it all fell apart. It'll be interesting to see if she rebounds from this disappoint and stays involved in politics, or if she withdraws back into private life.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Gerson on Obamamania
The Washington Post's Michael Gerson takes a look at Obamamania (or should we use the shorter, punchier, Obamania?) and likes...well, half of what he sees. The phenomenon has its good parts and its bad parts. First, the good:
The first kind of enthusiasm concerned Obama's racial background. It was reflected in the untethered joy of the Rev. Joseph Lowery's benediction -- the joy of victory against centuries of racism, violence, cruel humiliation and stolen labor.
Got to agree with Gerson there. While I don't think Obama should be commended just because he's black, I don't think there's anything wrong with celebrating the election of a black president.
Of course, I also agree with Gerson when he points out the nasty side of the Obamanon (that's a combination of "Obama" and "phenomenon," for those of you following at home):
Some wish to interpret the Obama victory as a big push in the culture war -- as an opportunity to attack their intellectual and cultural "inferiors." Most of us have witnessed this attitude, usually in college. The kids who employed contempt instead of argument, who shouted down speakers they didn't agree with, who thought anyone who contradicted them had a lower IQ, who talked of "reason" while exhibiting little of it.
As a college student myself, all I can say is: Amen, brother! The utter, seething contempt a lot of my classmates felt towards McCain, Bush, and (especially) Palin was almost frightening at times.
I recall an incident in one of my Poli Sci classes last semester. One student, who shall remain nameless because I don't know his name, was theorizing as to why Sarah Palin did poorly in her debate with Katie Couric.
Said this junior psychoanalyst, paraphrased: "It's not like she didn't know the answers...it was like she didn't understand the questions." Translation: Sarah Palin is totally retarded.
Will Obama's victory deflate some of this intellectual arrogance? God, I hope so. Otherwise, my last year at Carolina is going to be intolerable.
The first kind of enthusiasm concerned Obama's racial background. It was reflected in the untethered joy of the Rev. Joseph Lowery's benediction -- the joy of victory against centuries of racism, violence, cruel humiliation and stolen labor.
Got to agree with Gerson there. While I don't think Obama should be commended just because he's black, I don't think there's anything wrong with celebrating the election of a black president.
Of course, I also agree with Gerson when he points out the nasty side of the Obamanon (that's a combination of "Obama" and "phenomenon," for those of you following at home):
Some wish to interpret the Obama victory as a big push in the culture war -- as an opportunity to attack their intellectual and cultural "inferiors." Most of us have witnessed this attitude, usually in college. The kids who employed contempt instead of argument, who shouted down speakers they didn't agree with, who thought anyone who contradicted them had a lower IQ, who talked of "reason" while exhibiting little of it.
As a college student myself, all I can say is: Amen, brother! The utter, seething contempt a lot of my classmates felt towards McCain, Bush, and (especially) Palin was almost frightening at times.
I recall an incident in one of my Poli Sci classes last semester. One student, who shall remain nameless because I don't know his name, was theorizing as to why Sarah Palin did poorly in her debate with Katie Couric.
Said this junior psychoanalyst, paraphrased: "It's not like she didn't know the answers...it was like she didn't understand the questions." Translation: Sarah Palin is totally retarded.
Will Obama's victory deflate some of this intellectual arrogance? God, I hope so. Otherwise, my last year at Carolina is going to be intolerable.
Here Comes Change
That was fast. Obama's been in office for less than a week, and he's already overturned the abortion "gag rule," one the first acts of the Bush administration way back in 2001.
It probably won't get much play outside of the pro-life community. But they're going to be up in arms about it, I imagine. They were one of the most vehemently anti-Obama wings of the GOP, and this confirms their worst fears.
There will be plenty of Republicans urging moderation and conciliation, at least for a few months. Pro-lifers won't be among them. With this executive order, Obama must know he's declaring war on anti-abortion activists.
It probably won't get much play outside of the pro-life community. But they're going to be up in arms about it, I imagine. They were one of the most vehemently anti-Obama wings of the GOP, and this confirms their worst fears.
There will be plenty of Republicans urging moderation and conciliation, at least for a few months. Pro-lifers won't be among them. With this executive order, Obama must know he's declaring war on anti-abortion activists.
Kyl in 2012?
Does Arizona's junior senator harbor presidential ambitions? Or was John McCain just thinking aloud when he floated Jon Kyl's name?
Kyl was on the list of "25 Presidential Possibilities" I drew up after the election, but he was pretty far down. I don't know if rank-and-file Republicans are in the mood to nominate another Arizona senator. They've been burned once before.
Kyl was on the list of "25 Presidential Possibilities" I drew up after the election, but he was pretty far down. I don't know if rank-and-file Republicans are in the mood to nominate another Arizona senator. They've been burned once before.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Quick Reaction to the Inaugural
First, I didn't see most of it. I started watching it in my Politics & Religion class, only to have C-SPAN go on the fritz just as Aretha Franklin launched into a no doubt soul-stirring version of "My Country 'Tis of Thee." I ran over to the Student Union in time to catch Obama taking the oath of office and to hear the inaugural address. And I caught a few snatches of the after-speech invocation in the fax center.
So what did I think? Of Feinstein's speech, not much. She's a decent speaker, but nothing special. She wasn't helped by the fact that her topic has been worked over so many times that its been mashed into a soft, squishy pulp. Yes, the election of an African-American president is tremendously historic. But we don't need Feinstein to tell us that. The millions of people crammed onto the lawn were testament enough.
Warren's prayer, like Feinstein's speech, was nothing special. Sitting here, ten hours later, I can't remember a thing he said, other than his peculiar over-enunciation of the names of Obama's daughters. Oh, and he ended with the Lord's Prayer, but he gave it a rather unremarkable reading. It sounded less like a heartfelt plea to God the Father than an elementary school recitation.
Because of the crowd around the TV set, I wasn't able to see who it was who flubbed the Oath of Office--Obama, or John Roberts. I think I'm on safe ground, though, when I say that this is going to be a minor bone of contention between the left and right for the next couple days. Conservatives will say Obama caused the mix-up. Liberals will blame Roberts. So it goes.
Obama's speech itself was...oratorical. Always, it seems his style swallows up his content. You get so focused on his voice and delivery--both of which are magnificent--that lose any sense of what he's saying. It just becomes background noise, like the sound of traffic rumbling past your house. You hear the noise, not the words.
But if you did listen to the words, and I was able to pick up a few lines here and there, you couldn't help being both 1) impressed and 2) depressed. Impressed by Obama's command of language. He delivered a stirring tribute to self-sacrifice without veering into platitudes. He summons up memories of Lincoln and FDR, without being derivative of either.
Depressed, because today was the day Obama officially abandoned all pretense of "Hope" and decided to concentrate solely on "Change." Any glints of optimism were ruthlessly rousted out of the speech and cudgeled to death. It's going to be a long, grim couple years, was Obama's message. Maybe that explains why the crowd in the Student Union seemed so somber.
And lastly. I loved the line in the post-speech prayer about how "the yellow will be mellow...the red man can get ahead, man." I don't know if my appreciation was ironic or not, though. I guess that's one of the perils of being a college student.
So what did I think? Of Feinstein's speech, not much. She's a decent speaker, but nothing special. She wasn't helped by the fact that her topic has been worked over so many times that its been mashed into a soft, squishy pulp. Yes, the election of an African-American president is tremendously historic. But we don't need Feinstein to tell us that. The millions of people crammed onto the lawn were testament enough.
Warren's prayer, like Feinstein's speech, was nothing special. Sitting here, ten hours later, I can't remember a thing he said, other than his peculiar over-enunciation of the names of Obama's daughters. Oh, and he ended with the Lord's Prayer, but he gave it a rather unremarkable reading. It sounded less like a heartfelt plea to God the Father than an elementary school recitation.
Because of the crowd around the TV set, I wasn't able to see who it was who flubbed the Oath of Office--Obama, or John Roberts. I think I'm on safe ground, though, when I say that this is going to be a minor bone of contention between the left and right for the next couple days. Conservatives will say Obama caused the mix-up. Liberals will blame Roberts. So it goes.
Obama's speech itself was...oratorical. Always, it seems his style swallows up his content. You get so focused on his voice and delivery--both of which are magnificent--that lose any sense of what he's saying. It just becomes background noise, like the sound of traffic rumbling past your house. You hear the noise, not the words.
But if you did listen to the words, and I was able to pick up a few lines here and there, you couldn't help being both 1) impressed and 2) depressed. Impressed by Obama's command of language. He delivered a stirring tribute to self-sacrifice without veering into platitudes. He summons up memories of Lincoln and FDR, without being derivative of either.
Depressed, because today was the day Obama officially abandoned all pretense of "Hope" and decided to concentrate solely on "Change." Any glints of optimism were ruthlessly rousted out of the speech and cudgeled to death. It's going to be a long, grim couple years, was Obama's message. Maybe that explains why the crowd in the Student Union seemed so somber.
And lastly. I loved the line in the post-speech prayer about how "the yellow will be mellow...the red man can get ahead, man." I don't know if my appreciation was ironic or not, though. I guess that's one of the perils of being a college student.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Ohio Polls
Well, while we're considering the future, why don't we look a year further ahead? New polls out today from Ohio show that the race for George Voinovich's seat is going to be a dogfight, a barnburner, a knockdown brawl, or whatever metaphor you want to apply. According to PPP, Republican Rob Portman leads, but only by the slimmest of margins.
The 2009 Races
Let's not forget that, even though the big enchilada has already been decided, there are still a couple races going on this year. One of the biggest is going to be the race for governor of New Jersey, with incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine facing off--probably facing off, I should say--with US Attorney Chris Christie.
For the past two decades, New Jersey has been a microcosm for the decline and fall of the GOP in the Northeast. Back in the 80s, it tilted Republican. It voted for Reagan twice, and for Bush once; Republican Governor Tom Kean served two terms and left office as one of the most popular governors in America.
And it's all been going downhill since for the New Jersey GOP. Lately, they've been more intent on fighting amongst themselves than on beating the Democrats. The party's moderate and conservative wings have been at each others throats for years and years. That's why they've never been able to capitalize on the mistakes of the state's Democratic Party. And there have been quite a few of those mistakes. Remember Jim McGreevey, for instance?
This time around, the GOP has found the strongest possible candidate in Christie. Still, though, his path to the nomination isn't entirely clear. There's three other candidates running, and I'm sure each of them will try to claim the mantle of the "real conservative" in the race.
We'll see if the GOP tears itself apart yet again in the Garden State. If so, it would be a rather depressing validation of the GOP's moniker of "the Stupid Party." For more on the race, be sure to check out the always-authoritative Stuart Rothenberg.
For the past two decades, New Jersey has been a microcosm for the decline and fall of the GOP in the Northeast. Back in the 80s, it tilted Republican. It voted for Reagan twice, and for Bush once; Republican Governor Tom Kean served two terms and left office as one of the most popular governors in America.
And it's all been going downhill since for the New Jersey GOP. Lately, they've been more intent on fighting amongst themselves than on beating the Democrats. The party's moderate and conservative wings have been at each others throats for years and years. That's why they've never been able to capitalize on the mistakes of the state's Democratic Party. And there have been quite a few of those mistakes. Remember Jim McGreevey, for instance?
This time around, the GOP has found the strongest possible candidate in Christie. Still, though, his path to the nomination isn't entirely clear. There's three other candidates running, and I'm sure each of them will try to claim the mantle of the "real conservative" in the race.
We'll see if the GOP tears itself apart yet again in the Garden State. If so, it would be a rather depressing validation of the GOP's moniker of "the Stupid Party." For more on the race, be sure to check out the always-authoritative Stuart Rothenberg.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Buckley and Reagan
Ross Douthat gets expansive in his review of William F. Buckley's last book, "The Reagan I Knew," and provides a few thoughts on conservatism, populism, and the alliance between the two.
Sure, Douthat may have an agenda. After all, he did write a book--"Grand New Party," which I checked out of the library but never got around to reading--about how the GOP needs to move towards the center in order to win back votes. For the past few months, even before the election was over, he's been urging the GOP to disassociate itself from populists, or at least populists in the mold of Sarah Palin.
That doesn't make his writing worthless, though. He makes an especially good point when he notes that we shouldn't be attracted to populism just because it's scorned by the liberal elite. The elite scorn a lot of things that aren't worth embracing.
Populism needs to be able to stand on its own. We shouldn't flock to it just because liberals sneer at it. It needs to show the dynamic spirit and muscular Americanism embodied by Reagan. That's what Douthat's getting at, and that's what the GOP needs to tap into if it wants to succeed in the future.
Sure, Douthat may have an agenda. After all, he did write a book--"Grand New Party," which I checked out of the library but never got around to reading--about how the GOP needs to move towards the center in order to win back votes. For the past few months, even before the election was over, he's been urging the GOP to disassociate itself from populists, or at least populists in the mold of Sarah Palin.
That doesn't make his writing worthless, though. He makes an especially good point when he notes that we shouldn't be attracted to populism just because it's scorned by the liberal elite. The elite scorn a lot of things that aren't worth embracing.
Populism needs to be able to stand on its own. We shouldn't flock to it just because liberals sneer at it. It needs to show the dynamic spirit and muscular Americanism embodied by Reagan. That's what Douthat's getting at, and that's what the GOP needs to tap into if it wants to succeed in the future.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
America's Allies
Israel and India don't seem to have much in common beyond the letter "I." One is huge, the other tiny. One has more than a billion people, while the other is a little less populous than New Jersey. India is Hindu; Israel is Jewish. While parts of India have barely advanced beyond the bronze age, Israel is one of the world's most high-tech economies.
But there is something they share with each other--and with the US. They're on the hit list of radical Islamic terrorists. Shashi Tharoor takes a look at India's "Israel envy"--its desire to hit back at its tormentors the way Israel has struck at Hamas.
There was an interesting article in Sunday's NYT about how India sees itself as the heir to the US, the keeper of the American dream. It looks like they'll be inheriting some of our less pleasant keepsakes too.
But there is something they share with each other--and with the US. They're on the hit list of radical Islamic terrorists. Shashi Tharoor takes a look at India's "Israel envy"--its desire to hit back at its tormentors the way Israel has struck at Hamas.
There was an interesting article in Sunday's NYT about how India sees itself as the heir to the US, the keeper of the American dream. It looks like they'll be inheriting some of our less pleasant keepsakes too.
Down Mexico Way
The Pentagon recently released a study concluding that two major countries were at risk of becoming failed states--that is, there's a chance of their governments coming completely unglued. One is Pakistan. And the other is one of our neighbors. And it ain't Canada.
At the WSJ, Joel Kurtzman takes a look at how bad things have gotten south of the border. When most Americans hear "Tijuana," they think "spring break!" Kurtzman offers a grimmer assessment:
One center of the violence is Tijuana, where last year more than 600 people were killed in drug violence. Many were shot with assault rifles in the streets and left there to die. Some were killed in dance clubs in front of witnesses too scared to talk.
Is our border really strong enough to keep this sort of violence at bay? I don't want to be alarmist, but I can't shake the feeling that this won't remain a Mexican problem for long.
There won't be assault rifle shootings in the streets of San Antonio, but I'm betting that gang violence will get much, much worse in some southwestern cities. How to deal with it? Danged if I know. A coherent labor policy would be a step in the right direction, though.
At the WSJ, Joel Kurtzman takes a look at how bad things have gotten south of the border. When most Americans hear "Tijuana," they think "spring break!" Kurtzman offers a grimmer assessment:
One center of the violence is Tijuana, where last year more than 600 people were killed in drug violence. Many were shot with assault rifles in the streets and left there to die. Some were killed in dance clubs in front of witnesses too scared to talk.
Is our border really strong enough to keep this sort of violence at bay? I don't want to be alarmist, but I can't shake the feeling that this won't remain a Mexican problem for long.
There won't be assault rifle shootings in the streets of San Antonio, but I'm betting that gang violence will get much, much worse in some southwestern cities. How to deal with it? Danged if I know. A coherent labor policy would be a step in the right direction, though.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
O-Hi-O
Looks like the Republicans have found a potential replacement for George Voinovich in Ohio: former Bush budget director Rob Portman, who is also a former Ohio congressman. I recall a lot of people were talking up Portman as a potential VP for McCain. Well, maybe he will get to the Senate in the end.
It'll be interesting to see how much impact the Bush legacy has on this race. Will Portman be dragged down by the fact that he used to work in the Bush White House? Or will he be able to rise above it? It'll be an interesting sneak preview of Bush's legacy.
It'll be interesting to see how much impact the Bush legacy has on this race. Will Portman be dragged down by the fact that he used to work in the Bush White House? Or will he be able to rise above it? It'll be an interesting sneak preview of Bush's legacy.
The Future is Now
David Rogers of Politico writes an interesting--if overly gushy--look at how Obama has a chance to "seize the moment," starting with his inauguration.
Of course, Rogers talks a lot about how Obama is trying to follow the examples of FDR and Lincoln. But he also points out another, less celebrated president who Obama should seek to emulate: Grant.
True, Grant wasn't what anyone would call a great president. The best thing anyone can say about his administration is "It was pretty corrupt, yeah, but it wasn't Grant's fault. He was asleep at the switch, that's all." Hardly high praise.
But if Obama should avoid the example of Grant the President, he can learn some important lessons from Grant the General.
Rogers quotes James McPherson:
“One of Grant’s hallmarks as a general was his refusal to panic. He stayed cool when others around him were not. ... Grant took the long view of any campaign and wasn’t discouraged by temporary setbacks but pushed on. Obama has already demonstrated some of the same qualities in taking the long view.”
Is Obama a history lover? I hope so. If he is, he'll know that being a good president is more than parroting Lincoln and FDR. You've got to look at the qualities of all the past presidents, even the bad ones. Grant's not a bad place to start.
Of course, Rogers talks a lot about how Obama is trying to follow the examples of FDR and Lincoln. But he also points out another, less celebrated president who Obama should seek to emulate: Grant.
True, Grant wasn't what anyone would call a great president. The best thing anyone can say about his administration is "It was pretty corrupt, yeah, but it wasn't Grant's fault. He was asleep at the switch, that's all." Hardly high praise.
But if Obama should avoid the example of Grant the President, he can learn some important lessons from Grant the General.
Rogers quotes James McPherson:
“One of Grant’s hallmarks as a general was his refusal to panic. He stayed cool when others around him were not. ... Grant took the long view of any campaign and wasn’t discouraged by temporary setbacks but pushed on. Obama has already demonstrated some of the same qualities in taking the long view.”
Is Obama a history lover? I hope so. If he is, he'll know that being a good president is more than parroting Lincoln and FDR. You've got to look at the qualities of all the past presidents, even the bad ones. Grant's not a bad place to start.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Real Obama?
James Pethokoukis--who I really ought to read more of--points out that Obama, despite some nods to the right, isn't becoming the next Reagan, or even the next Bill Clinton. His mega-ultra-billion stimulus package might be heavy on the tax cuts, but that doesn't mean he's embraced the supply-side gospel. Writes Pethokoukis:
Centrist economic advisers such as Lawrence Summers, Peter Orszag, Austan Goolsbee, and Christina Romer have actually looked at the data and come to a different conclusion from the folks on Capitol Hill: 1) Infrastructure spending doesn't work fast enough to help an economy in freefall. Indeed, Orszag has called a "green" stimulus approach "totally impractical"; 2) there just aren't enough "shovel ready" projects out there. In a report on the Obama plan, advisers Jared Bernstein and Romer point out that there "is a limit on how much government investment can be carried out efficiently in a short time frame, and because tax cuts ... can be implemented quickly, they are crucial elements of any package aimed at easing economic distress quickly"; and 3) tax cuts boost growth. Romer has produced research that found "tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects" of roughly $3 in GDP growth for every $1 of tax cuts.
Pragmatism, pragmatism, pragmatism. That's going to be the rallying cry of the Obama administration for the next few months. Expect to hear it from all their surrogates on the Sunday shows.
"Obama's not interested in ideology; he just wants to fix the economy!"
"We're shooting for the most pragmatic solution possible."
"Right now, the important thing is to do what works."
Words like "good government," "efficiency," and "technocracy" are going to be on everyone's lips. And if that pragmatism sometimes comes wearing a Reagan mask, liberals shouldn't get too discouraged, nor conservatives too enthused. Obama is a liberal. End of story. He's just more flexible than your average left-winger.
Centrist economic advisers such as Lawrence Summers, Peter Orszag, Austan Goolsbee, and Christina Romer have actually looked at the data and come to a different conclusion from the folks on Capitol Hill: 1) Infrastructure spending doesn't work fast enough to help an economy in freefall. Indeed, Orszag has called a "green" stimulus approach "totally impractical"; 2) there just aren't enough "shovel ready" projects out there. In a report on the Obama plan, advisers Jared Bernstein and Romer point out that there "is a limit on how much government investment can be carried out efficiently in a short time frame, and because tax cuts ... can be implemented quickly, they are crucial elements of any package aimed at easing economic distress quickly"; and 3) tax cuts boost growth. Romer has produced research that found "tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects" of roughly $3 in GDP growth for every $1 of tax cuts.
Pragmatism, pragmatism, pragmatism. That's going to be the rallying cry of the Obama administration for the next few months. Expect to hear it from all their surrogates on the Sunday shows.
"Obama's not interested in ideology; he just wants to fix the economy!"
"We're shooting for the most pragmatic solution possible."
"Right now, the important thing is to do what works."
Words like "good government," "efficiency," and "technocracy" are going to be on everyone's lips. And if that pragmatism sometimes comes wearing a Reagan mask, liberals shouldn't get too discouraged, nor conservatives too enthused. Obama is a liberal. End of story. He's just more flexible than your average left-winger.
Quick Thoughts on Voinovich
George Voinovich, the senior Ohio senator and patriarch of the Buckeye State GOP, is set to retire in 2010. He's the fourth Republican senator to call it quits this cycle.
Obviously, this is bad news for the GOP. They've taken a beating in Ohio for the past few cycles, with 2006 being particularly bad. Not long ago it looked as if Ohio might be another Florida: a big, urbanized state with a small but clear tilt towards the Republican Party.
Bush won it in 2000, and it cast the deciding vote for his re-election in 2004. The state had two Republican senators--Voinovich and Mike DeWine--and a Republican governor, Bob Taft. The state legislature was dominated by the Republicans, as was the congressional delegation.
But over the past four years, everything just fell apart. You can't pick any one factor in the GOP's demise. There was the flagging economy, the unpopularity of President Bush, fear of outsourcing, and corruption in the Taft administration. What it all added up to, though, was a severe case of brand toxicity.
DeWine lost in 2006, and the Democrats took over the statehouse with ease. And just last year Obama won Ohio pretty handily. The GOP needs to start rebuilding. That's why Voinovich's retirement isn't as much a disaster as it first appears.
The conservative wing of the GOP was never happy with Voinovich. "RINO" was the politest term they threw at him. And unlike some others who get stuck with the label, Voinovich really deserved it. He was more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, always aiming for the center.
With him gone, Ohio gives the Republican Party a chance to test out GOP 2.0. They have a perfect laboratory to see what works and what doesn't. Does the GOP, as some bloggers and talk-show hosts insist, need to get back to its roots? Or does it need to make itself more of a big-tent party, more accepting of dissenters?
We'll find out in the most battlin' battlefield state of all. Voinovich's retirement has made Ohio a laboratory for the Republican Party. Let's hope they learn something from this experiment.
Obviously, this is bad news for the GOP. They've taken a beating in Ohio for the past few cycles, with 2006 being particularly bad. Not long ago it looked as if Ohio might be another Florida: a big, urbanized state with a small but clear tilt towards the Republican Party.
Bush won it in 2000, and it cast the deciding vote for his re-election in 2004. The state had two Republican senators--Voinovich and Mike DeWine--and a Republican governor, Bob Taft. The state legislature was dominated by the Republicans, as was the congressional delegation.
But over the past four years, everything just fell apart. You can't pick any one factor in the GOP's demise. There was the flagging economy, the unpopularity of President Bush, fear of outsourcing, and corruption in the Taft administration. What it all added up to, though, was a severe case of brand toxicity.
DeWine lost in 2006, and the Democrats took over the statehouse with ease. And just last year Obama won Ohio pretty handily. The GOP needs to start rebuilding. That's why Voinovich's retirement isn't as much a disaster as it first appears.
The conservative wing of the GOP was never happy with Voinovich. "RINO" was the politest term they threw at him. And unlike some others who get stuck with the label, Voinovich really deserved it. He was more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, always aiming for the center.
With him gone, Ohio gives the Republican Party a chance to test out GOP 2.0. They have a perfect laboratory to see what works and what doesn't. Does the GOP, as some bloggers and talk-show hosts insist, need to get back to its roots? Or does it need to make itself more of a big-tent party, more accepting of dissenters?
We'll find out in the most battlin' battlefield state of all. Voinovich's retirement has made Ohio a laboratory for the Republican Party. Let's hope they learn something from this experiment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)