Howard Fineman and some other astute political observers have written in recent days that Sarah Palin's announced resignation as Alaska's governor is a clever first step toward a 2012 presidential run. I just do not believe that this is true. If she really expected to run for president in 2012, it is fully understandable that she would not run for reelection as governor when her current term expires at the end of 2010. If she does have presidential expectations, however, it does not make sense for her to resign just over half way through her first term as governor. Although she is a darling of the Republican Right (I am trying to recall who the conservative pundit was who basically admitted to being sexually excited over Ms. Palin during her vice-presidential run), she has almost zero respect or credibility from the rest of the country, and quitting her current job for no obvious reason at this time would hardly help in building up her reputation.
If Governor Palin is resigning early because of family considerations, I can respect that. That could be a contributing factor, although I doubt that it is the primary reason. I think it is more likely that the main reason is that her being routinely lampooned by commentators and comedians caused her to lose her taste for electoral politics. If this is the case, she would have to be quite a masochist to want to run for president, in 2012 or any other year.
The main direct effect of her resignation is likely to be that she will make many times more money (probably something like $50,000 per speech) as a private citizen than she could possibly make as a government officer. As a private citizen with a major fan base among the right wingers of America, she could become something similar to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. She could articulate her message, make a fortune, and be accountable to nobody. She will be able to raise a lot of money for other Republican candidates, but contrary to the assertions of some political writers, I do not think it is likely that she will be doing that in order to collect a lot of political IOUs. She might be thinking about it, but I think it is more likely that her distaste for the political arena is genuine.
Was some of the criticism and jokes aimed at Sarah Palin unfair? Yes, some of it was. Should we feel sympathy for the governor? Hardly. This is not exactly a nice person we are talking about here. During her campaign for vice-president, Sarah Palin constantly told anybody who would listen that then-Senator Obama was "palling around with terrorists." She did everything she could to suggest that Barack Obama was siding with the terrorists against all decent American people. She belittled Obama's background as a community organizer, as if that was Obama's sole qualification for president. She also made very clear that she believed that the only "real Americans" were small town conservatives similar to himself, implying that those of us who do not fit that description ideally should not have the right to choose our political leaders.
Palin's defenders might argue that the job of a vice-presidential candidate is to attack the other party's presidential nominee, and that some distortion of the opposing candidates' records is part of the way the system works, and that the Republicans are no more guilty of these distortions than are the Democrats. That may all be true, but just as distorting a political opponent's record is as American as apple pie, so is political satire. One of the most famous pearls of wisdom attributed to Harry Truman was: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Governor Palin is simply taking that advice. As far as I am concerned, Sarah Palin combines several unattractive qualities. She is shallow, vindictive, and self-pitying. Perhaps that characterization is (slightly) too harsh, but I am expressing it as a matter of opinion, not fact. Nixon was vindictive and self-pitying in the extreme, but he was not shallow. I would hate to get another president with Nixon's personality traits, but I believe that Palin would be even worse. At any rate, I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find out, and that is a good thing.
For the past few weeks, former Vice-President Dick Cheney has been saying, in effect, that the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” used by the U.S. against suspected bad guys was justified because:
It seems to me that the first and second points are false, and the third one, whether true or false, is not a valid justification for torturing suspects in captivity.
Under the Bush administration, the U.S. engaged in practices – not simply by a few low-level rogue operatives, but under guidelines approved by the president – some of which are widely agreed to constitute torture. It can be debated regarding some of the methods used, but there should be no doubt that waterboarding qualified as torture. The U.S. in the past has approved of prosecuting for waterboarding as a war crime. If waterboarding is torture, then it is torture, regardless of which side does it.
The apologists for Mr. Cheney in Congress and the media point to the mildest of the questionable techniques, and then sarcastically ask: “Is that really torture? Should we have risked another ‘9/11’ attack because we were afraid to hurt the terrorists’ feelings?” Fortunately, I have never been in the position of knowing what I would do if I was subjected to torture, but it is not hard to guess. I would say anything to make it stop. If I though it would make a difference, I would confess to the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy, and for a little icing on the cake, Abraham Lincoln.
What surprises me about the Democrats’ reaction to Mr. Cheney is that they have implicitly accepted Cheney’s terms of the discussion. According to Cheney and his friends, torture was effective in getting valuable information about the terrorists’ plans. The other side says that torture is not effective, or that even if it occasionally produces genuinely valuable information, the same information could probably have been obtained by other means. This basis for argument gives Cheney an advantage he should not have. Did the “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually help the U.S. to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil? It is probably impossible to prove either way, but the assertion is at least plausible. The problem with presenting the issue this way is that there is an implied assumption that there is no incremental cost to using torture as a means of getting information. Cheney, and everybody else who advocates for torture, should be vigorously challenged on that point. In fact, there is a huge cost to the U.S. when its leaders try to give legal sanction to torturing people. To use economic terminology, in any major decision, the expected benefits should be weighed against the expected costs. Is it worthwhile to waterboard (or otherwise torture) so-called high-level detainees who might be able to provide information that could help prevent future acts of terrorism? If the cost is perceived to be zero, as Mr. Cheney implies, the resulting benefit – even if zero or negligible – should still at least equal the cost.
What is the “cost” of an American president deciding that torture is an acceptable method of interrogating prisoners? Although it would be difficult to quantify, I would say that the cost is huge. The U.S. is still the largest economic and military power in the world, but our relative power is declining, and we need allies. Our ability to influence world events in our favor is largely a function of our ability to persuade other countries to act in a manner consistent with our interests. To a large degree, our power to persuade depends on our continuing to be seen as a force for good, and respectful of international law. If we decide that international law is something to be followed only when it is convenient, and that torture is acceptable as long as we claim to be doing it for lofty purposes, our reputation and moral standing take a big hit. The resulting costs are immense. Simply asserting that “America does not torture” only makes us look like hypocrites if the claim is demonstrated to be false. Pictures and believable journalistic accounts of prisoners under American control being mistreated are effectively a recruiting poster for the terrorists. They also increase the likelihood that Americans will be mistreated when the bad guys have the opportunity. The way I see it, Mr. Cheney greatly understates the cost to the U.S. of using torture as an interrogation tool, and he also greatly overstates the incremental value that results. People are widely debating only the second half of that statement (does it produce valuable information?), but most discussions I have seen on television ignore the first half (what is the cost?).
If we are able to agree that the Bush administration did authorize torture (while claiming the contrary), and that some captives were in fact tortured, who – if anybody – should be prosecuted, either for committing acts of torture, or causing others to do so? There are some well-reasoned arguments in favor of such prosecutions, but based on presently known information, I do not favor prosecuting anybody. Basically, I am weighing political reality more heavily than moral or legal purity. If there is strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing far beyond what is now known, that would be different.
There is widespread agreement with President Obama that the CIA operatives who acted within the guidelines they were given should not be prosecuted. They were following what they had reason to believe were lawful orders. If those orders were later determined to have been unlawful, it is not fair to charge the interrogators themselves for crimes based on ex post standards. Some people have suggested that the U.S. should prosecute the Bush Justice Department lawyers who crafted the morally challenged standards and gave an apparent legal stamp of approval to torture. Although it might be emotionally satisfying to see some of these people in the slammer, I cannot see a legal justification for prosecuting a lawyer who offers morally repugnant advice to a client, even though the client in this case was the Pesident of the United States. If there is a basis for disbarment of some of these lawyers (and I don’t know if that is the case), that would suit me fine, but I think a criminal prosecution would be wrong.
That leaves the question of whether to prosecute Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and perhaps a couple of other high officials such as Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Gonzales. These are the people who gave the orders. Legally and morally, they probably deserve it. Politically, I think it is a bad idea. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they could argue that preventing further disasters was such a critical priority that everything they did with that objective in mind should be regarded as both legal and proper. If they believed that aggressive interrogation of suspected terrorists, and the equally illegal warrantless domestic spying, were useful in protecting the American people from another attack, they would have been derelict in their duty if they had refrained from such actions. We can argue several years later, with the benefit of hindsight (and of course, no additional terrorist attacks in the U.S.), that some of their actions were illegal, but they should be judged on the basis of what the political atmosphere was like at that time. Personally, I do not buy that argument, but my guess is that most Americans would accept it. The prosecutions would be widely seen as politically motivated, and based on changed standards. I do not want George W. Bush or (even worse) Dick Cheney to get the chance to become martyrs. They do not deserve the moral high ground, and criminal prosecutions against them would hand them that opportunity. Remember that back in the 1980’s, even a contemptible lawbreaker like Oliver North was able to transform himself into a folk hero when it was commonly perceived that he was treated unfairly. It would be much better to let Bush and Cheney live out their remaining years in personal comfort and prosperity… and the disgrace that they richly deserve. The best way to make sure that torture is never again part of U.S. official policy is not to jail the former leaders, but to make sure they are thoroughly discredited. A criminal trial would be counter-productive.
If there is going to be a fact-finding commission to examine some of the possibly illegal actions of the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” it should be set up by the president (not by Congress), and the appointees should be a highly respected group of Democrats and Republicans – people whose integrity is beyond doubt. If the commission is widely perceived to be loaded one way or the other, it would be worse than useless. On the other hand, if the commission is generally perceived as fair to all sides, it could provide a valuable public service.
Arizona State University has drawn wide attention to itself by inviting President Barack Obama to be a commencement speaker, but contrary to the usual practice, and in an implied snub to the president, the school is not offering an honorary degree to Mr. Obama. One TV pundit suggested that Obama cancel his plans to speak at Arizona State. Unless there is some crisis that would demand that Obama cancel that engagement anyway, he should take the high road and keep his commencement date.
Although I am not familiar with the process of colleges and universities offering honorary degrees, I would think it is at least possible that Arizona State might reconsider its position. Even if that is not the case, however, Obama has every reason to conduct himself with class, and not concern himself with such a petty issue. As we all know, Obama has managed to build a fairly accomplished resume up to this time: graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, editor-in-chief of Harvard Law Review, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, state and U.S. Senator, author of two well-regarded best selling books, and… I know there is something else… now I remember – President of the United States. In addition to all of his public accomplishments, by all indications he is an excellent husband and father. Does Obama really need an honorary degree from Arizona State University to validate his success?
Some people have observed that Arizona State has previously bestowed honorary degrees on people seemingly less deserving than President Obama. That is something that the students and faculty of ASU can debate about. I think that ASU’s action is a little strange, but Obama should not react as if this was a matter of great importance.
Senate will delay action on bonuses tax , not to mention Geithner and the President himself are backtracking on the House action.
The arguments about breaking contracts between employers and employees is bogus. If it had meaning, my real estate tax increases could not cut my raise in half. The retroactive tax argument is bogus. A bonus paid in 2009 is current year taxable earning. The argument that it is not constitutional is the biggest crock of them all. Cigarette taxes, liquor taxes, skims from lotteries are all punitive taxes, and legit. And lets just wait until carbon credits roll, which will be the biggest social engineering tax of them all. These are all Wall Street arguments floated to save their bonuses!
Are we finally seeing tranparency? Is it transparent now the Congress and the Administration listen to and work for Wall Street, first and foremost? If they work for all Americans, then they should act on all our behalf. The House did, this time!
Mr. President, your call for fiscal responsibility in spending the Recovery Act tax dollars has the agreement of every American. It won't be an easy job. But, it would seem to me, there is at least one, simple driving function that you can use, namely the performance standards of every Government manager.
Performing the mission under budget is NOT, and never has been a job standard in government. In fact, the whole Executive Branch operates on the premise that turning money back to the Treasury is a sin. "Year End Obligations" is what the annual September ritual is known as. I believe you can issue and Executive Order that makes "fiscal performance against budget" a mandatory performance standard for all Government managers. A standard that clearly states that coming in under budget will be rewarded. In fact, I think, it needs to be the standard with the most weight, to motivate the behavior you are expecting from your workforce.
Congress, historically, also sees the appropriations as "must spend" amounts, where wasting tax dollars to meet obligation goals is inherent. Perhaps you'd need bi-Partisan agreement and support for the Executive Order to change their mindset. But which representative of the tax payers will oppose budgets as maximums, and instead, publicly support fiscal irresponsibility? I think you can drive this through.
Mr. President, you promised us change. Turning the Federal Government into an organization that puts primary value on conserving the tax payer's money would be a huge , and welcome change. One that perhaps all levels of government could adopt.
Start Fiscal Responsibility in Government - all it would take is your Executive Order !
I really would like to see two rules implemented in the Administration's Homeowner Stability Initiative procedures, in addition to payments lowered to 31% of income.
First, no tax deductions for interest on bailed out mortgages. That would make the rest of us cover the sin twice.
Second, if and when a bailed out property gets sold for more than the mortgage principal, the "profit" gets taxed at 100%, until the incentives are paid back. Those incentives, of a thousand dollars here and there, are our tax dollars! They need to be paid back to the Treasury, not end up as "somebody's slick move".
The implementation rules must contain assurances that the $75 billion gets paid back by those who got bailed out, not by our children.
Mr. Geithner has several months for developing the implementation rules. The money comes out of TARP, which means he can do pretty much whatever he wants. Such rules should not be a problem for him, and it would be very reassuring, and FAIR, for those of us with the "responsible gene".
There is no constitutional right to homeownership! If you borrowed above your means, you've got no right to stability of ownership! The fact that the value of a house dropped below your purchase price is not relevant unless you want to sell - and if you can't afford to sell, then stay put - that is stability!
If you want rules for dealing with this mess, and keep 4 million families from being thrown out on the street (who, by the way, are not all hopelessly helpless to start with), here is a suggestion to Mr. Geithner:
Make the banks take their houses back (let them foreclose) and make them rent to the occupants (for minimum of 1 year, or pick your time frame)!
Then the dumb bankers will have their "fair market equity" and the dumb buyers will have a roof over their heads at "fair market rates"
I do not want my children to pay for all these gifts!
The GOP and the Beltway still underestimate President Obama. Some establishment types have great difficulty adapting to the new political order in Washington. These same types misread the writings on the wall during both the primaries and the election where they were out maneuvered by the then candidate Senator Obama, as he not only won the Democratic nomination but also totally defeated Senator John McCain , the GOP nominee.
The last week saw the GOP wade into pious self congratulation for their obstinate opposition to the signed stimulus legislation believing, as did the Beltway, that they had scored a major victory by denying the President his much vaunted bi-partisanship. The fact that the President still got what he sought; a stimulus legislation passed within 30 days of his taking office and that major GOP Governors including that of California seeking governmental assistance stood full-square with the President were totally oblivious to them. To the chagrin of the GOP, Beltway and in particular FOX News, the latest opinion polls seem to suggest that the American people are also full-square behind their President and had not read the script pushed haughtily by the Beltway and cable networks about a GOP victory in the tussle for bi-partisanship. The President’s approval ratings remain stratospheric, the Democratic Congress scores highly; in fact the highest they have scored to date and Representative Pelosi is more popular than the nearest GOP in either Houses of Congress.
Will the GOP grasp the new reality and muster opposition or just whine away in oblivion and irrelevance? That would be a shame because inasmuch as I support the President, I still believe in a strong but pragmatic opposition. That is not just good for American democracy but good for the President and a resurgent Democratic controlled Capitol. It would also signify once and for all that the GOP is now reformed and subscribe to proper and accountable government. That will not only be a testament sought by Americans but the wider World that we would never revert to what we just witnessed these past eight years.
The question though is simply will the GOP survive as a coherent political force in an Obama Presidency?
I had worked for nearly 50 years, starting with pumping gas when I was 14. I paid my way through engineering school. Worked my way up to what you'd call middle management, before I semi-retired this year. My wife and I raised our children, put them through college, and they are productive, good citizens now. While we scrimped early on, going pay check to paycheck, other than a mortgage, we never carried debt. Paying off the mortgage was one of my pre-retirement goals, and we managed to do so. Mind you, we've lived in our house since 1980, the only thing flipping since then were hamburgers on the backyard barbeque. My pension is reasonable, we have no debts, we've done all the right and responsible things, and now I am starting to feel like a sucker! You might ask why?
Because I will be paying off the debts of irresponsible consumers and the salaries of high paid financiers. I will be getting no tax breaks, while Washington is creating them for those who want to borrow, and live beyond their means once again. My biggest uncertainty is not about the Dow Jones, not about housing prices. It is about taxes and inflation.
What is currently going on is eventually going to have to be paid for, either by more taxes or by inflation. Maybe it will be creatively deferred until past my time. But we have also gifted our children with the "responsible gene". If Washington doesn't get me, then it will make suckers of our children. Social conscience is OK by me. Helping those in need is also. But throwing my tax dollars at greedy crooks, greedy idiots (lenders and borrowers) and adding more pork to wasteful programs and pet rocks is not.
President Obama, perhaps this is not the story you wanted to hear, but it is a real, true, and American story. Thank you for your time.
Thus Spake the Audacity
The space limitless borderless and self-contained
The space eternally futile, meaningless and purposeless
The space studded with planets and stars for no cause
There hung a scene afloat and adrift
A pendant podium embellished volatile and hollow
Withered yet gleaming and glimmering masks all over
Seemed a pompous and redundant ostentation
All the celestial bodies behind the intimidation
Standing there was a two-legged creature
With a clowning grin and a lustrous mask
Varied emotions frequenting the mask
His hind limbs shackled with grey promises
His dwarf forelimb clutched but mesmerizing
His mask qualm and scruple and spinning
His stout contour dark and tender
The mask engraved with an obstinate lined dimple
His eyes unmatching the posterity and silky path
A safari legacy and a candy in the mouth
The tongue thick yet agile and brisk
The eyeballs oscillating up and down
An alacrity and swiftness called as audacity
Utterances brimmed audacity was prone;
Prone to prove the hidden beyond the imprudence
A tamed bird bearing a gloomy carcass in its beak
A pertinent insecurity fenced the whole scene
Before him was gathered a look alike fauna
Pairs of eyes outnumbering the stars;
Glow in the eyes lightened the whole place
Hands handcuffed with brittle consolations
Their heads pivoted on an abyss of hopes
Their bodies reinforced with perilous ambitions
Guarded they were with newly born;
distention, altercations and fray
Undestined foresightedness led the this way
Their tongue acetous and teeth tart
separated the were with apathetic invisible walls
Pungent was their cavity and obnoxious was their breath
Hapless eyes waiting for an immortal miracle
Elongated were their years desperate for:
The old repetition of the dissuasion pattern
Their legs firmly anchored in the rotten and ruined grave of;
morality, affability, infelicity, fraternity love and motherhood
there reigned the wisps of delirium and swoon
Corpuscles of discontent, infliction, torments, misery
and apprehensions with their cousins;
thrusting the crowd to stagger
Their hearts still invisible to be called as stoned
Infidelity and disloyalty were on probation with them
Betrayal was also awaiting its turn
Having had a famine of tenderness and love
They were to be threaded to the crust of chaos
Capped savage and barbarous clouds looming over them
Rambling to pour the hatred and wet the people with fear
Moaning and deploring they were for nothing
The life is strange Ekin
The audacity was prone and aptly prompted
So was ready the gathering knelt and squatted
The space witnessed the tongue tickled and;
Threats beguiled cheers and applause
The ambience was filled with sound
Thus space the Audacity.... I stand before you humbled......
The life is paradoxical Ekin
Gestation
Long awaiting impatient tidal shore Ahoy! Yelling wanderer was what the shore bore A peering hollow was what the shore bore more A waiting womb was conceived with…. Untrained and innocent was the womb Womb bore only one facet of life Second to be born when an Adonis is in the echelons of power Gusts of strong desires and wisps of ardent ambition Thus carved and adorned a waif for the coronation Waif proliferates to become a prince Prince culminates in to an emperor Destiny had a revolution: actually part of process Ekin Ekin,life is strange and by chance The emperor expands the physical senses to dare the thresholds Darkened corners are lightened…. Inaudible are audible…. Far is no longer farther… Legs get airborne…. Vast round shaped is a tiny town… Memory gets deepened and atomized… Pitiable remain the taste buds and the nostrils Morality remains for the destitute only The sun and the moon two hand of a clock ticked by; Bliss and torment… Divinity and suffering.. Privileged and trodden ones Ethics and rationales… Logic has had them as fossils at the sand of the time Practicality beats the drums of aloofness and loneliness Trumpet of professionalism blows away The stringent of affection Mendicant vultures and trashy savages; Ogling and daring the once conceived womb The life is strange Ekin The womb is slyly crying to get conceived yet again Alas! The emperor is unmindful of; the groan and cry of the womb still meandering
Ekin
Replacement is not a change
Lest the change be replacement only
The change yet far and beyond
Replacement is not a change o! chief
Hopes are from the old mindset
A heart is to change not the regime
Wearing old shoes further tightens the spiral life
Old one is to lead to catastrophe
Compensation with ability is just inevitable; for the
Novice older ones
My beloved chief
Intoxicated demand more toxicity
Know not it all
Curved life is desparate for a straight breathing
Let the arrow be in two directions simultaneously
Arrow of filling and the arrow of solace
Redress invites further decay only
The life is by chance
Your majesty must walk on the two edged sword
Love you my chief
Vulnerable Anvil
Stinking are the cornersRepulsion sees connivanceObnoxious is just to intimidateThe fragrance gets mixed with itAdversary only not a foe; to be grinning soonAnvil is lava hot and molding is toughPretensions are from the both sidesThe brighter one is better at concealingA single drop in the cluster of dropsOnerous is the stirringReluctance is the manner initiallyPrevailing one is blurred; tribe is confused so is the chiefLife is strange EkinPathetic to see you maneuvering o! Chief
As I write this, we are less than 72 hours from the inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th president, and George W. Bush will very soon be history. Rating the presidents is a popular game. As we enter the final days of the 43rd president’s reign, many professional pundits and others are putting in their two cents worth, rating the presidential performance of Mr. Bush. Since I don’t get paid for expressing my opinions, my own view is not even worth the proverbial two cents, but here goes…
As President Bush and some of his friends have correctly noted, it is too early for any “final” verdict on his presidency. There are various future events that could modify our initial conclusions regarding the Bush record. It is at least possible, for example, that Iraq will emerge in the near future as a stable liberal democracy, and a model to be emulated by its Arab neighbors. If this actually happens, even Mr. Bush’s harshest critics would probably have to revise their evaluations upward at least a little bit. I do not think that such an outcome is likely in the foreseeable future, but it is possible. The main point here is that our judgment at this time has to be regarded as tentative, and subject to possible reassessment in either direction based on subsequent events.
Before getting into the factors that I believe are the most crucial in judging the Bush presidency, I want to dispense with the factors that some people sometimes emphasize, but which I think are of little or no importance. First, the controversy surrounding his election eight years ago, and the possibility that the election was “stolen” on his behalf by the Republican political establishment in Florida, has no bearing on how we should grade the Bush presidency. Whether or not his becoming president was the result of improper shenanigans of some kind, the fact is that George W. Bush has been the President of the United States for the past eight years. It is his record as president that matters, not how he got to the White House in the first place. Second, let’s assume that Mr. Bush is basically a nice guy, a devoted family man, and that his actions as president were motivated by sincere intentions to best serve the interests of the American people. That also does not matter. We judge our presidents by what they actually did, and the effects of their actions, rather than our assumptions about their motives.
In his recent public comments, Mr. Bush has (like any other retired or soon-to-be retired president) tried to put a positive spin on his own presidential record. More than anything else, he emphasizes the fact that since 9/11/2001, there have been no subsequent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. His point is that he has kept America safe for the past 7+ years. The implication by Mr. Bush and his supporters is that this factor is such a major plus in his record that it far outweighs all the possible, but unspecified, negatives. I do not agree.
I can give him some credit for the absence of terrorist attacks in the U.S. during the past seven years, but subject to some significant qualifications. In the first place, if the lack of terrorist attacks since 2001 is the crowning achievement of his presidency, then it is also appropriate to note his administration’s failure to recognize the threat of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. Vigilance by the administration since then has undoubtedly helped to prevent subsequent attacks, although it must share a significant share of the credit with the good work by many local police departments and the intelligence agencies of other countries. However, in addition to the productive resources that have been used in combating terrorism, President Bush also wasted extraordinary resources that were supposedly for the same purpose, but which contributed no incremental value. Is America really safer and stronger than it was seven years ago? In many ways, I strongly doubt that it is.
As much as anything else, the war on terror has defined the George W. Bush presidency. After the 9/11 attacks, it was apparent that the Taliban in Afghanistan had provided a base for the Al Qaeda terrorists, and it was appropriate to go after them. Had President Bush focused on that mission, he might have succeeded in establishing an effective and responsible Afghan government, capturing or killing bin Laden, and at a fraction of the costs actually incurred in the “war on terror.”
Instead, Mr. Bush turned his attention on Iraq and its odious dictator, Saddam Hussein. While nobody disputes that Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy, by 2003 his ability to be a menace beyond the borders of his own country was very limited. He had been effectively contained by the economic sanctions, no-fly zones, and weapons inspections. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was completely unnecessary, and even if we concede (which I do not) that the decision to invade Iraq and force regime change was a proper exercise of American power, the policy was executed with gross incompetence. Although Mr. Bush has tried to deflect responsibility for these mistakes on others (the CIA and its counterparts in allied governments, along with some of our military leaders), he is absolutely responsible for all of the mistakes pertaining to the Iraq War. It was Mr. Bush, and advisors personally selected by Mr. Bush (such as Donald Rumsfeld), who ignored sound advice and accurate information that did not fit their preconceived notions. The main justifications given by the president for the war (a strongly implied connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, plus Saddam’s alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction) were bogus. The costs of the war to America have been huge, in terms of lives, treasury, and diplomatic damage. So far, it is not at all apparent that Iraq or the Middle East – and America’s interests in that region – have derived a net benefit as a result of the regime change. The one country in that region that has undeniably gained from Mr. Bush’s actions is Iran, and that cannot possibly have been Mr. Bush’s intention. For all of Saddam Hussein’s faults, his one “virtue,” from the U.S. point of view, was that he was an enemy and counterweight to the Shiite theocracy in Iran. While that fact would not justify supporting his regime, forcibly removing Saddam from the picture brought on a successor government in Iraq that is supported and influenced by Iran. President Bush had articulated his notion of an “axis of evil,” consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The implication was that these three countries were allies of each other, conspiring together to do evil deeds at every opportunity. It appears to me that Mr. Bush was handed a catchy phrase by a speechwriter, and then sincerely bought into its implication. In fact, Iraq and Iran were enemies of each other, and to some degree each of those two countries served as a check on the power of the other. Not any more, thanks to President Bush.
Personally, I am appalled at the Bush administration’s contemptuous attitude toward civil liberties and international law’s prohibitions on torture. George W. Bush should, and probably will, be condemned by future historians for his disregard for the laws and the Constitution that he swore to uphold. In the name of keeping America safe from terrorists (which nobody should dispute is a worthy goal), Mr. Bush has claimed the right to torture suspects, lock people up without time limits or any due process, spy on American citizens without a warrant – and all of this in direct contradiction of statutory and international law. The Bush administration has, in effect, asserted that anything it does in the name of national security is legal and proper, and not subject to any laws that would suggest otherwise. In its efforts to hold itself above the law, the Bush administration is very much on the wrong side of history.
However, I do not weigh these factors as heavily as some critics are inclined to do. The Bush record in these areas is very bad, but compared to some of the other wrongheaded policies by this president, these problems are more easily corrected. In times of perceived threats to the American way of life, civil liberties have often been discarded. Within the living memory of many older Americans, many thousands of Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put into concentration camps. This was morally reprehensible, and it served no legitimate national security purpose. That episode has to be regarded as a disgrace in modern American history, but it has not prevented most historians from an overall judgment that Franklin Roosevelt was one of our great presidents. Mr. Bush’s willingness to use torture as an interrogation tool, and his attempts to claim that the president is beyond the reach of the law, have been a disgrace, but they have far less long-term impact than many of his other actions. Civil liberties and the rule of law can be easily restored by the next president’s reversal of these policies and practices of President Bush.
Leaving aside the issue of keeping America safe from international Bad Guys, the major domestic legacy of the Bush administration was his tax cut legislation during his first term. The president had campaigned on his intentions to reduce taxes, and as president he lobbied hard to get the legislation through Congress. He was successful in getting Congress to pass something very close to what he wanted. If the net effect of the tax cut is good, Mr. Bush deserves the credit; if the net effect is bad, he deserves the blame. In my own opinion, the tax cuts had more negative than positive effects. I am less bothered than some people are by the fact that most of the benefits went to those with high incomes. Reducing marginal tax rates generally have a stimulating effect on economic activity. The real problem with the tax cuts is that they were accompanied by huge increases in government spending. Recall that, back in 2001, Mr. Bush inherited a government in fiscal surplus. He claimed at the time that surpluses would continue indefinitely into the future, and that even under the worst case scenario – a recession plus an as yet unforeseen national emergency – the enacting of his tax cuts would supposedly only reduce future government surpluses by half. The tax cuts passed, and we soon afterward got our national emergency (the terrorist attacks) and the recession. In little time, we went from a record surplus to record deficits. It can be argued that the tax cuts made the 2001 recession milder than it otherwise might have been, but they also made the long-term problem of an increased national debt much worse. This president, who preached the Republican mantra of small government, greatly expanded the government’s spending and power. Maybe Congress should be held responsible for some of the increased spending, but President Bush did not veto a single bill during his first term.
Recessions are part of the business cycle, and I do not blame President Bush for the fact that a recession occurs on his watch. However, his policies are responsible for making existing problems worse. Regardless of whether tax rates go up or down, increasing government spending is really a tax increase, and reducing the government’s ability to pay for the spending programs amounts to sending an ever increasing I.O.U. to our children. To his partial credit, Mr. Bush attempted in 2005 to reform social security, which is headed for a demographic time bomb in the coming years. He had a sensible suggestion regarding slowing down the pace of benefit increases in the future. Unfortunately, when he had his one good opportunity to accomplish meaningful social security reform, he made the mistake of insisting on a partial privatization of the program, and he wound up accomplishing nothing. This was a squandered opportunity for an important and positive accomplishment by President Bush.
Mr. Bush has displayed a hostile attitude toward financial regulation, with unfortunate results that should not come as a big surprise. The banking and mortgage crises occurring near the end of his presidency are not entirely his fault, but the Bush policies aggravated the problem.
There are several other aspects of Mr. Bush’s presidency that may be less significant than the issues discussed above, but which also add to the negative side of the ledger. He fired federal prosecutors for not being sufficiently partisan in their jobs, which are supposed to carried out in a non-partisan manner. He famously said in a speech that “we are addicted to oil,” but his energy policies did nothing to address the problem of the “addiction.” From a national security standpoint, the U.S. continues to have an unhealthy dependence on oil, which leaves us vulnerable to the whims of some hostile foreign governments. Any time a situation called for a scientific study, Mr. Bush made sure to stack the deck, in order to make sure that the panel concluded what he wanted them to conclude. His approach is the antithesis of the principle of scientific inquiry. I honestly do not know whether or not global warming is as big a problem as Al Gore suggests, but it does appear to be a bigger problem than Mr. Bush has ever cared to acknowledge. The longer the problem is put off, the more drastic the consequences will be. Mr. Bush has been an advocate of free trade, but he has supported steel industry and farm legislation that violate trade agreements (to be fair about it, most recent presidents have supported free trade in theory more than in practice). In addition, he has been consistently hostile to all international organizations, regarding them as infringements on American sovereignty, and he did not see fit to make an exception for the World Trade Organization. Although it is not a popular cause, free trade is in the general interest of the American people. Mr. Bush seems to understand this, but he never spent much effort promoting it. That is too bad, because with a recession facing us, and Democrats in solid control of Congress, expansion of trade opportunities within the next several years looks very unlikely. Back to the Middle East, it may not have been possible for President Bush to solve the problem between Israel and the Palestinians, but he never made much of an effort in that area, and the situation there is worse now than it was when he became president eight years ago.
In summary, although our verdict on the George W. Bush presidency for now must be regarded as tentative, it is hard for me to see a realistic possibility that his presidency will be regarded as anything but a failure. He claimed that he would pursue a “humble” foreign policy, but instead his record on foreign affairs was the most arrogant in memory. He ordered an invasion of a country that had not attacked the U.S. or its allies, nor was it an imminent threat to do so. The consequences of this totally unnecessary war have left America weaker (economically, militarily, diplomatically) than it would otherwise be. During the Bush presidency, America has been less respected by the rest of the world than at any other time in several generations. This is important, because the world is continually becoming more interconnected. Our country is still the most powerful in the world, but in dealing with other countries in the future, our power to persuade will be far more important than our power to coerce. Mr. Bush talked of the conservative virtues of limited government, but his actions were the opposite of his expressed intentions. He had the federal government overrule the states when a state decided on a policy that was not to his liking (medical marijuana, for example). One of his major goals, with the enthusiastic assistance of Dick Cheney, was to strengthen the presidency by claiming that it is not subject to constraints by the law, or by actions by Congress or the courts. These extreme interpretations of presidential power may well have the effect of weakening the presidency. That is what happened following similarly imperial claims of presidential power by Richard Nixon. I am not judging Mr. Bush harshly because his goals and priorities might be different from mine. Instead, I am saying that he is a failed president because he failed in terms of his own stated goals.
On the last day of 2008, I am looking back on the political developments this year. In www.my.barackobama.com, I have written over 100 essays in the past year, and posted comments to many more that were written by others. I have also gained the benefit of acquiring several dozen new “friends” who I will very likely never meet, and the exchange of ideas has been very enjoyable. All of us who regularly contributed postings to mbo.com can look back and observe snapshots of our own attitudes over the course of the year, like a photo album but with words rather than pictures. It is an unusual pleasure to have been able to enthusiastically support, as opposed to merely settle for, a presidential candidate, and still a rarer pleasure to have that candidate win the general election. Barack Obama is about to become president at a time of great challenges, and it is not reasonable to expect that all of the problems he inherits will be fully solved any time soon. I am hopeful that he will do a good job, and that his decisions will be the correct ones most of the time.
In looking back on my own writing over the course of this past year, I can see that I (like most bloggers in varying degrees) sometimes had the tendency to overstate the case. For example, there were some harsher statements about Bill and Hillary Clinton than they deserved. Hey, that is what happens when we get on our electronic soapbox. I regarded some of their public statements against Obama – when Senators Obama and Clinton were competing for the Democratic presidential nomination – as offensive and unworthy of accomplished public officials. Then again, many of our most admired political leaders throughout American history engaged in much worse political claptrap than anything either of the Clintons said or did in this campaign. It is easy to lose perspective.
If Obama did not run for president, or if his campaign fizzled out at the beginning, I could have comfortably supported Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, or Chris Dodd for president. They are all good people, and I think that any of them would have made a good president, although I always believed that Obama was the best available candidate. Once it became apparent that either Obama or Clinton would be the nominee, Joe Biden was my first choice for vice-president, and I was glad to see him get the job.
I was much less comfortable with Hillary Clinton as a candidate, although I almost certainly would have voted for her over any Republican nominee this year. Part of my problem with Mrs. Clinton as president is that, for all of her obvious intelligence and knowledge of the issues, she did a very poor job with her healthcare reform efforts in 1993. Her only experience in actually running anything did not go well at all. Later on, I was also appalled by what I regarded as very obnoxious behavior on her part toward Barack Obama. On reflection, I probably made too much of that at the time.
Many Obama supporters were admirers of John Edwards, but I cannot agree at all on the merits of Mr. Edwards. If he had won the Democratic nomination, I still am not sure if I could have brought myself to vote for him over Senator McCain. Many people admire Edwards for his calling public attention to poverty in America, noting that most politicians at least claim to be fighting for the middle class (where most Americans, including yours truly, identify themselves). Few politicians, other than those representing districts with high rates of poverty, talk about poverty at all, and it is arguably to Mr. Edwards’ credit that he raises the issue. That may be true, but I also believe that his policies would in the long run be disastrous for the people he is allegedly trying to help. The other problem I had with Edwards was his grandstanding about being the only candidate willing to “take on corporate America.” That strikes me as very similar to when Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin talked about the “real Americans,” as opposed to those of us who are apparently fake Americans. In the case of both John Edwards and Sarah Palin, it appeared to me that if they could have their way, a major segment of the American population would not be welcome to have their views represented in Washington. As far as the later revelations about Mr. Edwards’ philandering were concerned, I was just relieved that he had made himself politically irrelevant.
The other two Democrats seeking the presidency at the beginning of the year, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, were both political jokes as far as I was concerned, and did not need to be taken seriously.
Among the Republicans running for president at the beginning of the year, I thought that John McCain was their best candidate. I liked him in 2000, when he competed with George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination. As in the case of Hillary Clinton, I was more negative in my comments about John McCain during 2008 than he probably deserved. McCain is basically a good person. On the other hand, I doubt that he would have made a good president. My biggest single objection to McCain as president was that he intended to appoint more right wing judges to the Supreme Court (and presumably the other federal courts). Thanks to a concerted effort by Republican presidents over the past generation, the courts are already overrepresented by right wing judges. McCain and all the other Republicans seeking the presidency this year were dedicated to continuing that trend. In varying ways, I thought that the other Republican presidential contenders, with the exception of Ron Paul, had all of McCain’s faults and none of his virtues. I do not think that Ron Paul would make a good president, and he never had a realistic chance for his party’s nomination, but I still like the guy. In a way, he is the conscience of his party, a reminder of conservatism’s libertarian roots.
As an amateur student of American history and the presidency, I have become persuaded that one of the qualities common to our better presidents has been a strong sense of history. The good presidents have understood what worked in the past, and what didn’t work, and they knew how to apply the lessons from the past to the present situation. A good president also has to be a good manager. He (or, some day, she) cannot be much better, although it is possible to be much worse, than the people he hires for his cabinet and White House staff. He has to be able to delegate a lot of the work to these people, but at the same time the ultimate responsibility is his. I think that Barack Obama has the qualities that can make him a great president [Whether or not things actually turn out that way, we will not know for quite some time]. He is a big reader of history and related subjects, and some of his reading choices have been exactly what I would have recommended, in the event that he was to solicit my opinion. He is surrounding himself with very talented and knowledgeable people. It also at least appears that he wants honest advice from these people, as opposed to some presidents who have tended to ignore or dismiss advisors who dared to tell the president anything that conflicted with his own preconceived ideas. The president should encourage spirited debate among his advisors, but once the policy has been decided, those same advisors should be able to publicly support the president, or else resign. If a particular advisor finds that the president no longer values his input, he should resign. It seemed to me that Colin Powell should have resigned as Bush’s Secretary of State long before he actually left the job, rather than continue to publicly support a policy he knew was wrong.
As Obama takes office on January 20, some of the challenges he faces will be formidable. I hope that the Obama presidency will focus on long term solutions to problems. This applies to a lot of areas, but I am thinking specifically about the economy. Much of the current economic crisis is the result of people and institutions pursuing short term goals. As long as asset prices were rising, investors and home owners benefited from highly leveraged deals. The Detroit-based auto makers emphasized the SUVs and light trucks because that was where the profits were best. A few years ago, Congress even passed a law giving tax favored treatment to businesses that bought SUVs (as opposed to ordinary passenger cars). Managers at investment banks and industrial corporations were paid huge bonuses based on short term results. All these things seemed to help keep the economy humming along… for awhile. The pursuit of short term results is often contrary to the longer term interest. A company that cuts out (or drastically reduces) spending on maintenance or on research and development can make one quarterly income statement look good, but it is likely to have a negative impact on its future. I think it is likely that the economy will get worse, maybe for a year or so, before it gets better, and I hope that Obama (and Congress) will have the wisdom to avoid the kind of quick fixes that seem to address some problem, but which make the situation much worse in the long run. For example, they should resist their protectionist inclinations, even though there could be a political price to pay.
Anyway, having supported Barack Obama’s candidacy from the beginning, I got what I wished for. My candidate got elected, along with my preferred choice for vice-president. I hope that I will continue to be pleased with the election results in the years to come.
I have recently read two books about the presidential campaign. Submitted for your approval – as Rod Serling used to say when introducing his Twilight Zone episodes – the setting is basically as follows: The United States is engaged in an undeclared war, which originally enjoyed popular support, but the war has been seriously mismanaged. The general public has observed incompetent leadership at the top, and many who originally supported the war have now come to believe that the war was a mistake. The incumbent (and soon to be retiring) President of the United States has seen his own popularity drastically reduced, for several reasons but mainly because of the widespread perception that the war was both badly conceived and poorly executed. In the Democratic Party, the two leading anti-war presidential contenders are both sitting members of the U.S. Senate. They are ideologically similar, and policy differences between the two of them are minor. Unfortunately, these two senators personally detest each other. This is cause for great concern among Democrats, because a badly divided party would likely result in their losing a presidential election they otherwise should have a good chance of winning.
Sound familiar? As you probably have figured out by now, the year is… 1968. The unpopular president is Lyndon Johnson. The two feuding Democratic senators running for president are Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. As we all know now, Senator Kennedy was assassinated, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination, but with the Democratic Party sharply divided between the pro-war and anti-war factions, Republican nominee Richard Nixon won a close but decisive election.
There are some parallels between the 1968 and 2008 political situations, although one significant difference is that, despite some bitter exchanges, the personal relationship between Senators Obama and Clinton was nowhere near as bad as the antipathy between McCarthy and Kennedy in 1968. Many of the supporters of either Obama or Clinton declared that they would find it impossible to support the other candidate in the general election, but in the end, the great majority of Clinton backers wound up voting for Obama in November, and I think it is likely that, had Hillary Clinton managed to win the nomination, most Obama supporters would have voted for her against Senator McCain. It was a hard fought contest for the Democratic nomination this year, but after Obama officially won the prize, both Hillary and Bill Clinton delivered when it mattered. For months, the Clintons did everything they could to suggest that Barack Obama was not qualified to be president, even to the point of implying at times that John McCain would be preferable to Obama as president. When Obama still won the nomination, the Clintons did an about face and enthusiastically endorsed him, as if all the previous criticism of Obama was meaningless. In a way, it was meaningless. To put it another way, it was politics. Different candidates compete hard for their party’s nomination, and the losing candidates then support the nominee of their own party in the general election.
I do not know the exact nature of the personal relationship between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but it is a reasonable guess that at least to some degree, they are friends. They are fellow Democrats, ideologically similar, and have been Senate colleagues for the past four years. It is likely that Mrs. Clinton resented her younger colleague’s aggressive, and ultimately successful, pursuit of a presidential nomination that she believed was rightfully hers. In spite of that, both Clinton and Obama understand the nature of politics, and there appears to be a mutual respect between the two of them. That mutual respect was missing in the relationship between Kennedy and McCarthy forty years earlier. Obama did not have to offer Clinton the job of Secretary of State, and she did not have to accept it. Both of them had good alternatives available to them.
Shortly after the election, I wrote in a blog post that I hoped that Bill Richardson, and not Hillary Clinton, would get the top job at State. As it turns out, the job will be Clinton’s. There is no use now in wishing that Obama had made a different choice, and I hope that Mrs. Clinton will do an excellent job. I read somebody’s commentary to the effect that as Secretary of State, Clinton would undermine the Obama presidency by trying to advance her own agenda for 2012. That is (very probably) nonsense. If Mrs. Clinton really intended to challenge Mr. Obama for the 2012 presidential nomination, there is no way that she would accept an offer to serve in his cabinet. If President Obama is made to look bad in the area of foreign policy, Secretary of State Clinton would certainly not look good. For now, Obama and Clinton have a commonality of interests. Obama has assembled a team of very talented and accomplished people to serve in his cabinet and other top posts. If he can use these people effectively, Obama can be a great president. For Hillary Clinton and the other top officials, their own reputations will be best enhanced if they succeed in making the president look good. Mrs. Clinton most likely will never become President of the United States. That is probably a disappointing reality to Mrs. Clinton and her fans. However, she does have the opportunity to establish a valuable legacy for herself in American history, by being the best Secretary of State that she can be.
President-Elect Barack Obama has incurred a lot of hostility to his decision to have Rev. Rick Warren, a well-known televangelist, lead a prayer at the presidential inauguration. The principal reason for the opposition is that Rev. Warren is believed to be anti-gay, and that giving him the honor of leading a prayer at the inauguration is a huge insult to a group of Americans that strongly supported Obama in the election.
Rev. Warren would not have been my choice, but I think the hostile reaction is excessive. Personally, I never pay any attention to what any preacher says at a presidential inauguration. The one exception I recall is when Rev. Martin Luther King Sr. gave a rousing speech at the inauguration of President Jimmy Carter. Other than that, I do not know who the preachers are, or what they say. It is just part of a ceremony. To me, objecting to the presence of Rev. Warren is like being a guest at somebody’s wedding and complaining about the couple’s choice of music being used in the ceremony. Rev. Warren is not my proverbial cup of tea, but I fail to see that it is an important issue.
Is Rev. Warren really anti-gay, as his accusers suggest? The accusers certainly have a basis to believe that he is. He has said that anybody (gays included) are welcome to attend his church, but that gays who do not renounce their “lifestyle” cannot be members of his church. And of course, he was strongly in favor of California’s (his home state’s) Proposition 8, which would have the effect of prohibiting and invalidating same-sex marriages in that state. On the other hand, his record suggests that he is not infected with the same kind of ugly bigotry that characterizes some other celebrated TV preachers.
My own position on same-sex marriage is basically the same as that of President-Elect Obama. I am open to persuasion to the contrary, but it seems to me that civil unions (marriage in everything but name) plus protection against discrimination should be sufficient to address the legitimate civil rights issues, regarding gay rights. Social acceptance cannot be legislated; it takes time and patience. I think that most people can accept the idea of civil unions, and maybe after several years and we find that the sky is not falling, same-sex marriage by name will also gain wider acceptance. If I lived in California, I would have voted against Proposition 8. While I am not really an advocate of same-sex marriage, I believe that it is a mistake to make them constitutionally prohibited, which Proposition 8 does at the state level. On the other hand, there is too widespread a tendency to label people as bigots if they disagree with us on this or some other issue.
Think of the major civil rights legislation from the 1960’s. While it is probably fair to say that nearly all bigots opposed those civil rights measures, it is not fair to say that bigotry was a motivation for everybody who opposed those laws. There were principled conservatives who were personally against discrimination but who also believed that it was not the business of the federal government to prohibit what was admittedly obnoxious behavior. Their reasoning was wrong, of course. Before the passage of those laws, a significant segment of the American population was effectively denied many basic rights, including: the right to vote, job opportunities, decent education, and availability of housing and public accommodations. The federal government had a legitimate interest in safeguarding the rights of citizens whose civil rights were otherwise denied. The fact that the principled conservatives were allied with the bigots in opposing the civil right laws – although for different reasons – did not make them bigots themselves, even though they were (by any reasonable person’s reckoning today) on the wrong side of the issue.
In a similar way, I think that the people who voted in favor of Proposition 8 were mistaken, but it is too simple just to label everybody who voted for it (and those in other states who cheered it on) as bigots. Some of those who voted for it probably thought, rather than voting for same-sex marriage to be permanently prohibited in California, that civil unions are okay but they did not want to have same-sex marriage recognized immediately. That would be a misunderstanding of the wording of the proposition, but the point is that many of those who voted in favor of Proposition 8 are not really “anti-gay.” Others who voted for it undoubtedly feel that – as I suggested above – civil unions and anti-discrimination laws (regarding jobs, housing, etc.) are sufficient in meeting the legitimate civil rights issues regarding gays. Reasonable people can disagree over that issue, but I cannot accept the notion that all of those who believe that the word “marriage” should apply specifically to a union of one man and one woman are “anti-gay.”
To those who are upset about Rev. Warren having a high profile role at the inauguration of Barack Obama, I suggest that they accept – at least for now – the notion that President-Elect Obama just wants to reach out to a wide variety of Americans, including groups that did not support him in the election campaign. Watch what he does as president. I think he will satisfy most people who might be suspicious about his commitment to civil rights. The selection of Rev. Warren is a symbolic gesture to the evangelicals, and it has no other practical significance.
