Are Questions of Republican Viability Legitimate?

Arlen Specter’s recent switch to the Democratic Party amplified a burgeoning narrative of Republican parochialism. Republicans have supposedly failed in recent elections because they are glued to the moribund thinking of the 1980s that emphasized social conservatism, low taxes, and a strong defense. That coalition has withered away and conventional wisdom says to survive they must embrace new constituencies like Hispanics and gays. Perhaps that is true. Or maybe they are just a victim of an almost  scientific process?

Voters in the 2006 midterms cited corruption as their main reason for voting Republicans out of office. Not Iraq, not social values, but corruption. This did not happen because Democratic politicians somehow had a monopoly on virtue, but because it was the inevitable consequence of Republican longevity and power. They controlled all three branches of government and owed too many people too many favors after the  steady accumulation of  quid pro quos. That’s politics.

If the impediment to Republican success is narrowness, then how did they win using the 1980s formula just four years ago? The demographics are pretty much the same. Pundits can always counter with such claims as Kerry was a particularly weak candidate or Republicans effectively exploited terrorism, but if those were the real variables at play then that just further illustrates the insignificance of party platforms.

Republicans are in a flux because they are simply a function of the political pendulum. With Democrats currently in charge of all three branches of government, they too will be inevitably blamed for corruption and failed promises. Steep inflation could lead Republicans to steal a page out of James Carville’s 1992 playbook, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Whatever the issue might be, something will trigger a change back to the other party. That’s how a two party system functions.

Popular Personalities and ad hoc policy gambits might prolong the power of one party or hasten the demise of the opposition, but the parties are in a permanent tug of war governed by a liberal constitution. All political players are just actors in a script that was written long ago. Taking that approach strips the excitement and fun out of the game. So all of us accent specific variables to attribute blame for the ephemeral fall of one party. But we should just be cognizant of the real truth. And then continue to play.

Thoughts on Specter, the News Conference, and the First 100 Days

• It seemed like an awfully big coincidence that Specter changed parties right before President Obama’s 100th day. The move certainly gives Obama a lot of momentum into Wednesday’s press conference and should also eat up a few questions from the press corps. This eerily reminds me of Colin Powell’s decision to endorse Obama a few weeks before election day. Like Specter, there were many rumors that Powell was going to betray his fellow Republicans. He disregarded those comments but later supported Obama at a more critical time. I guess both questions can only be answered when such folks as Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod pen their memoirs.
• So now that the Democrats ostensibly have their filibuster proof majority, will the Republicans sniff out Sen. Roland Burris as a potential ally on certain issues? Key Democrats including Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin are jettisoning Burris for Illinois state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias in the 2010 primaries. If Burris figures that his seat is gone, he might be a tough vote on key Democratic legislation. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. It is more likely  though that the Democrats will give Burris favors sub rosa. One thing is for sure though: Burris shall be watched.
• With Specter, swine flu, and Air Force One’s mistake dominating the news cycle, will the press corps once again fail to ask any foreign policy questions(if you don’t count torture as one)? Foreign policy is intrinsically the most opaque part of government, and it looks like Obama will once again eschew divulging any important facts about his administration’s position on key international issues.
• In light of Tim Geithner’s schedule just being disclosed, it seems that the most important aspect of being the Secretary of any cabinet is one’s ability to adroitly handle the media. Most of his days as Treasury Secretary consist of meeting with members of the press, prepping for interviews, and talking with lawmakers. He rarely spends much time actually contemplating the issues—that task appears to be in the hands of his subordinates. Therefore, the key behind cabinet choices should be their communication skills, not their analytical skills(one can of course have both…).
• And finally, watch for any potential 2012 Republican candidates to start making the media rounds this week. With the 100 days number marketed so effectively, an above average amount of people will be paying attention to the news this week. For those considering making a splash in presidential politics, look for them to do shows starting tomorrow through the Sunday shows trying to corner the voice of opposition. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s decision to dominate the media on Tuesday was probably not accidental.

Why Healthcare?

Figuring out the real reason behind a political decision is a very tricky thing. Politicians support legislation for myriad factors, including votes, ideology,  and life story. President Obama’s insistence on making healthcare a priority can certainly be fit into all three categories. Many analysts believe that if the Democrats successfully pull off healthcare, they will be the dominant party for a long time. Government run healthcare is  also congruent with his liberal ideology. But his gamble might emanate from his mother’s fight with ovarian cancer.

Obama usually speaks with dispassionate coolness. Yes, his voice is engaging, but it’s  much more professorial than emotional. Yet, when he brings up the constant fights his mother had with insurance companies about being covered for her cancer, he speaks with a rare moral outrage. Not the kind of faux outrage that he expressed over the AIG bonus money, but a genuine outrage bothered by the crude capitalism that is associated with healthcare. In the fall of 2007, he said that “My mother died of cancer at 53…In those last painful months she was more worried about paying her medical bills than getting well.” The most cynical might claim that he was simply using an emotional story for political gain, but it seems probable that he has steadfastly carried this moral belief with him since he became personally entangled with the travails of healthcare. During the primaries, it came out that he explicitly supported universal healthcare during his state senate days. He probably moderated his position to navigate the national winds and not the other way around.

Biographers of President Johnson say that his commitment to the Great Society directly came from tangible experiences with poverty. President Clinton supposedly spent enough time on racial issues to be dubbed the first black president because of his first hand account of segregation in the South. And it just might be that Obama fights more vigorously for healthcare than energy, education, and the rest of the liberal agenda because of his mother’s story. It might sound fallacious to political scholars-and it might be-but emotions should never be underestimated in trying to understand someone’s true intent. Relentless ambition comes not from intellectual derivation, but from a heart that seeks  purpose.

Republican Exploitation of Afghanistan

It can and has been argued that President Obama won the Democratic primary because of his early opposition to the Iraq War. In late 2002, he gave a passionate speech denouncing the potential invasion as a “dumb war.” A combination of fear and conventional wisdom led most Democrats  to stand behind President Bush from 2002-2003. His gamble clearly paid off, while status quo thinking thwarted the ambitions of his leftist peers. A Republican who shares the same dreams and aspirations as Obama should consider a similar gambit.

A few days ago the Politico reported that the Pentagon is preparing to fight in Afghanistan for the next three to five years. This serious commitment has the potential to pay dividends for Democrats-especially a capture of Osama Bin Laden-, but it could also catastrophically backfire. Casualties and appropriations could amass to such an extent that Republican voters demand change. There is a precedent for this; Republican Richard Nixon during the 1968 election campaigned on the promise to end the Vietnam War.

Strategists would skeptically note that it is significantly more appealing for Democrats to be anti-war with their base than it is for Republicans to be with theirs. While this is true, the anti-spending sentiment of the Republican party has eruptively emerged in the form of tea parties. That anti-government feeling could certainly be extended to defense spending if Afghanistan requires at least $40 billion annually for another five years.

To make it far in politics, a politician usually has to make some type of a big gamble to make him or her unique. LBJ took on segregation from the South, Nixon was one of the first ones to become fiercely anti-communist, Reagan fully embraced the most radical wing of his party, Bush I controversially supported civil rights from the South as a congressman, etc. Playing  by the textbook is tempting, but is generally a losing strategy. Just look at Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney in the 2008 primaries.

So if a long shot like MS Governor Haley Barbour, SC Governor Mark Sanford, or Arizona Senator John Kyl wants to genuinely take a stab at 2012, they should consider opposing Obama’s latest measures in Afghanistan. If everything works out well, Obama will probably be reelected or one of the Republicans favorites will prevail. If it fails, however, a dark horse could seize the anti-war lacuna in Republican politics.

Why Not Yemen?

It’s pretty clear that Obama wants to make Afghanistan his war. He’s not only pledging thousands of more troops, but also is willing to use both domestic and international capital to procure as much support as possible. In other words, he’s putting a lot on the line. The justification for the increased presence emanates from the belief that Afghanistan has become a failed state, meaning that terrorists can more easily operate in the country. To fix this, it is said that America must send more troops there to both kill terrorists and train the local police. Using this logic, the necessary question to ask is why America does not commit itself to bringing stability to Yemen.

There is a consensus in the foreign policy community that Yemen warrants the title of failed state. Al Qaeda has a strong foothold there and the government cannot carry out its basic responsibilities. And more than simply being an isolated area that harbors terrorists, it has the potential to disrupt US interests in oil rich Saudi Arabia. Could you imagine the implications of terrorists interfering in the oil production of its northern neighbor?

Asking key Obama administration officials this question might provide a valuable window into the real reasons behind going into Afghanistan. Since they won’t foolishly disagree with the premise of Yemen’s increasing difficulties, the way in which they navigate the question would be interesting. Will their answer imply that the Afghanistan move is mostly about Pakistan? Might it be about increasing pressure on its other bordering country—Iran? Is the Atlantic Monthly’s Robert Kaplan onto something when he says that bringing stability to Afghanistan would allow the transference of energy from  Central Asia to India? Is that part of the equation?

In December of last year, it was very telling when former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told David Gregory on Meet the Press that the US ultimately decided not to go into Darfur because it is part of a far away and complex Muslim country. She essentially used the same argument that Iraq War critics did. The comment proved the obvious; Iraq was not really about bringing freedom as was commonly said. Using ostensible parallels can help tear down some of the rhetoric that politicians employ.

At Obama’s last press conference, the media received a lot of flack for failing to elicit meaningful answers to big questions. Before the Q&A session though, Politico’s Mike Allen had a good piece on how reporters try to make news. Major Garret of Fox News said the best way to do this with Obama was  ”to push him in an explanatory direction. He loves to explain things, and sometimes in the explaining he makes news.” Therefore, effectively asking Obama, “Explain why Afghanistan and not Yemen when they share many of the same problems,” might actually give the public some clues into his foreign policy—-policies that are always much more opaque than domestic policy.

Government Pork: The Exclusivity Illusion

Republicans and some conservative Democrats have been complaining about the almost 800 billion dollar stimulus bill. Their grievances lie in giveaways like the $150 million for the Smithsonian and the $ 30 million project for San Francisco to restore wetlands. Their moral outrage, however, is unsophisticated. In theory, it is abominable for a taxpayer in Oklahoma to fund a museum more than a thousand miles away. But if those critics disdain that, they ought to extend that same disgust to the private sector as well.

There is undoubtedly more of a bottom line in the private sector than the public sector. Gimmicky accounting measures can temporarily hide the true worth of a firm, but investors will ultimately flee if a firm cannot eventually generate positive cash flows. The  real effectiveness of a government program can be more easily concealed from taxpayers. The complexity of laws and government funding make it easier to dupe the public. And the private sector measures profitability, while  government programs can be justified using other arguments. Homeland Security, for example, can claim that there has not been another attack since 9-11. That indisputable statement does not necessarily mean they deserve the credit for that. Perhaps there hasn’t been another attack despite their efforts—-not because of them. Having said that, investors still have some of their money used for wasteful things, just like taxpayers do.

The most common criticism of waste in corporations is on such luxury items as jets and expensive meals. But how about the distribution of jobs? Senior executives can frequently convince Human Resources to hire a family member or close friend even if they are not the most qualified.Or how about a big corporation giving money away to a local school even if there are no tangible benefits of doing so? Or how about a corporation hiring a certain bank not because it is the most competitive, but because the CFO of the company is friendly with a certain Managing Director from one of the banks?  If  shareholders agree that those costs aren’t very burdensome, then it should follow that taxpayers accept pork as an infinitesimally small percentage of GDP.  

Not only do investors acquiesce to those examples, in many cases they gladly acquiesce. If the price of keeping top money makers at the company is giving them more favors, so be it. And if the price of having a government that works and functions is minimal corruption, so be it. If investors think unnecessary expenses are too excessive, they can sell their assets. And if taxpayers think they are getting ripped off, midterms are at maximum two years away.

It is true that Americans have no choice but to have some type of government-unlike investors and their respective financial instruments- but is that such a bad thing? States will always fight vigorously over federal resources, but no one complained about the infusion of Republican money into Democratic New York after 9-11. God forbid another natural disaster like Katrina happens in Louisiana, I am sure Obama will unflinchingly come to their rescue. During the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict in 2006, America made sure to take care of and rescue its 25,000 citizens in Lebanon—regardless of party. 

This is not to suggest that citizens should stop demanding and expecting a more perfect union. All it is saying is those citizens that complain the most, who are ironically the most well off, should try to have some perspective. They might be overtaxed, but at least their wealth is protected through laws more than any other country in the world. That insurance outweighs the personal cost of paying for the Smithsonian.

Structural Lessons from The Bush Presidency

We often hear personal criticisms of former President Bush. He didn’t listen, was incurious and unintelligent, acted stubbornly, and didn’t know how to manage big egos. These characteristics, supposedly, explain the failures of his presidency. Some of these might be true, but it’s hard to say. Unless you were a Bush intimate, you can’t intelligently speak about the man himself. We can instead look at structural impediments, which might have been the source of his mistakes.

Reelection as a distraction- The Iraq War is and will continue to be a hotly contested war. Was it necessary? Is the realpolitik assertion that Sadaam Hussein impeded Iran from becoming a hegemonic Middle Eastern power true? Will Iraq turn into a democracy? Those questions will not be answered for some time. We do know one thing, however; many consequential decisions concerning the Iraq War were made during 2004—-Bush’s reelection year. Bush, for example, outsourced the choice to disband the Iraqi national army to Paul Bremmer during that time. Many critics cite that singular decision as the reason behind Iraqi violence from 2004 to 2007. Many exit strategies were implemented that year as well. And Abu Ghraib (the torture prison), one of the few mistakes Bush has owned up to, began in 2004. If he did not have to focus on another election, would the US have made so many mistakes in Iraq? Regardless of who the President is, running a presidential campaign in the era of 24/7 news will take away that person’s energies from presidential duties. The only other precedent is Richard Nixon, who made mistakes about Vietnam in 1972. The question is: can the President be an effective commander in chief during politics season? Perhaps not.

Popularity Matters-Bush wore his low approval ratings as a badge of honor. In his mind, it meant that he made bold and courage decisions, eschewing the temptation to be well ephemerally received.. There is certainly some validity behind this thinking. Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, and John Adams were unpopular men who have been vindicated by history. At the same time, Bush’s unpopularity prevented him from using the bully pulpit to tackle objectively bad policy. A prime example of this was last year during a legislative fight over a grotesque farm bill. The US government bought food at two times cost, and then sold them for twenty cents on the dollar to appease  farming constituents. This move not only hurt taxpayers, but it disallowed farmers in Africa to rise out of poverty since they cannot compete with artificially low prices. Bush vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him easily. If Bush were more popular, then he could’ve waged a stronger fight through favorable media coverage and with the American people’s trust. He was, on the contrary, ineffective. He might’ve been defeated anyway because of lobbyists, but he at least would’ve been able to put a fight. This example also applies to his failed efforts in achieving a Free Trade deal with Colombia and getting immigration reform. So even if Bush were confident in decisions that the media and opposition condemned him for, more humility and gimmicky media appearances might’ve made him more popular to stand up for the things he believes in. Yes he would’ve been “chasing popularity,” but it would’ve been for the right reasons.

Lobbyists will win- Although I just wrote how popularity can prevail over lobbyists, there are some fights that even the most popular President cannot win. The debacle of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac illustrates this very well. On The View last September, former President Clinton said that he, like Bush, tried to reform those mortgage businesses. Just as Bush encountered, he said lobbyists money to congressmen and senators took away his ability to get real reform done. And President Clinton had high approval ratings, so unpopularity clearly had nothing to do with it. The Founders created three somewhat equal branches of government, meaning that some things are neither to the President’s credit nor to his fault.

This piece is not to serve as an excuse for President Bush’s mistakes. I think his immediate handling of 9-11, something most folks accredit him with, is in many respects a function of context as well. Any President would’ve strongly condemned those actions and struck back. I don’t know how exceptionally stellar his performance was. This piece is also not meant to say a President doesn’t have real power to make real decisions. It was ultimately up to Bush to start Iraq just as many other decisions were. But some decisions, or parts of those decisions, transcended the power of the President. Scholars should figure those out, instead of blaming bad decisions on unprovable character attributes.

 

 

 

 

The Irrationality We Should Acknowledge

Turn on the television, read an op-ed, or even listen to that antiquated radio and you’ll hear commentators and citizens alike subscribing to the theory of how unique this moment is in American history. Barack Obama is going to be the first black President in a nation scarred by slavery. But more than that, this economic crisis presents an opportunity for us to come together and finally tackle our nation’s ills. We can create better schools, better hospitals, and a better foreign policy. And Obama, who consistently projects the best in us, will lead the way. It is this sense of possibility that drives a country on the verge of bankruptcy to devote unprecedented resources to experience “history.” For the wealthy, it means spending fifty thousand dollars on a fancy ball to shake his hand. For the less well off, it means doing whatever it takes to be in our nation’s capital. Even if it means sitting far away, it’ll still be worthwhile because at least you can say you were there. Imagine, instead, if all those resources were  spent on carrying out Obama’s aspirations.

If 1.2+ million people were as enthusiastic about solving our nation’s inequities as they were about the inauguration, we’d most certainly  have solved them. No child would starve. No student would be denied entrance to school on the basis of cost. No sixty year old would be turned away from a necessary surgery because he or she made too much to qualify for Medicaid yet was too young to qualify for Medicare. Given this, why will everyone in one form or another give a disproportionate amount of their time to hear a variation of a speech we’ve heard so much that it sounds like a bromide?It’s a complex question, but I’ll take my best shot.

We spend the time hearing someone else tell us how we’ll tackle these infinitely daedal quandaries because we want to feel a part of something. If we spent the time individually helping, we’d feel like we were making a marginal difference at best. Yet if everyone is helping, then we might actually be able to make a difference. If one man takes the helm, we can follow him and finally make genuine progress. Any observer of human history, however, understands the egregious failures of collective action. Our selfishness impedes the potential to create the utopia that philosophers and artists have dreamt of ever since we were capable of thought. Anyone who seriously cogitates about it will inevitably have to laugh at the irrationality of it all. 1.2 million celebrating one man’s ability to navigate the political winds better than his opponents. Come on, how does that personally help anyone who isn’t part of Obama’s team or at least tangentially part of politics? It doesn’t. On January 21st we’ll be as rich or poor, happy or unhappy, God hating or fearing as we were on January 20th. We’ll do better or worse based partly on our merit and partly on life’s randomness, not because of some distant man in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

We do it because, simply, we need faith to believe that tomorrow will triumph yesterday. It’s no different than somebody accepting that Jesus Christ died two thousand years ago  for our sins. It’s no different than believing you were put here for an ad hoc purpose. It’s rooted in a belief that cannot be proven— something we all share in some fashion  or another. Its manifestations vary, but we all share it. Ideally, those who mock liberals for believing so much in Obama would realize that  they, in practice, do the same thing in their house of worship. Conversely, those who believe in Obama should admit that doing so makes as much intellectual sense as religion. Of course the cleavage between both sides will not shrink. But hey, that’s the change I’ll dream about on Tuesday.

P.S. If an Obama like figure were about to embark on the Presidency twenty years ago while Barack was at Harvard Law, would he be in D.C. celebrating? We know the Clintons worked on Jimmy Carter’s campaign in 1976, and Obama never has done the equivalent. Then again, there were no compelling Democratic figures in the 1980s while he came of age.

The Swinging Pendulum: Obama’s Move to Universal Acceptance

In politics, new administrations often try to do the opposite of what their predecessors did. Proponents of this thinking cite Bush’s refusal to play peacemaker between the Palestinians and Israelis as a prime example. For the last few months of President Bill Clinton’s term, he worked extraordinarily hard to get a deal done. Once Bush came in, he arrantly abandoned those efforts. Once again we are confronted with a marked change in approach. For the last few years, President Bush has taken the my way or the highway approach. To his admirers, his actions reflect those of a principled and tough leader. To his detractors, his actions are rooted in stubbornness and delusion. But it is indisputable that Bush alienates a good chunk of lawmakers. Barack Obama, however, is charting a fundamentally different route; he really is attempting to unite everyone around the economic crisis.

Barack Obama’s real economic philosophy is opaque. He frequently appears to be an acolyte of Keynesian economics, where the government has a moral imperative to put equality ahead of efficiency. This was evident when he told ABC News’ Charlie Gibson that capital gains should be raised even if it decreases revenue for the government. This is evident when he tells college graduates to eschew the private sector to join the government to solve our nation’s ills. This was probably most evident when he told New York Times senior economic correspondent David  Leonhardt that one of his favorite quotes concerns the pitfalls of strictly measuring GDP. He spoke affectionately of Robert F. Kennedy’s point that GDP “counts special locks for our doors and jails for those who break them…but not the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.”

There must, however, be cognitive dissonance with his beliefs. He prefaces every economic argument by displaying a healthy respect for free markets. He thinks free markets have no rival in their ability to efficiently allocate resources. He told Chris Wallace of Fox News last spring that deregulation during Ronald Reagan’s presidency positively impacted the middle and lower class because prices came dramatically down. And he said last summer that one of his favorite economic thinkers of the twentieth century is Friedrich Hayek, a man who passionately argued for the minimization of central planning.

His seemingly bipolar views of the economy are in full force with his bailout proposal. A major part of his proposal is stimulating demand; give people money and they will spend it, creating a multiplier effect that stimulates the production of goods and services. This is an inherently Keynesian idea. He also believes the government is prudent and intelligent enough to figure out how much money should be invested in education, healthcare, and alternative energy with very little respect to market mechanisms. This is another Keynesian belief. He, at the time, advocates for many supply side measures to stimulate business. This includes a reduction in certain taxes and a tax credit for hiring or rehiring workers.

The only possible answer to why he wants such a contradictory bill is to maintain or increase his popularity. One of his aides told the Wall Street Journal that he wants at least 80 out of a 100 senators to vote on the bill, even though only 60 would be required to make it law. It is as if the bailout is a direct indictment on presidential power without popular backing. It’s another example of history moving from one extreme to another. Whether it’s the fierce intellectual movements of foreign policy from realism to neoliberalism or free markets to state control, the zeitgeist seems to change in 180 degrees. The execution of these ideologies certainly don’t move with such extremes. President Woodrow Wilson, a President who wanted to spread democracy and liberty around the world, still had good relations with the Ottoman Empire while they were killing millions of Armenians. And the free market Ronald Reagan never cut spending that much, evidenced by the US’ sizable deficits during the 1980s. But the average belief out there, which a President tries to match with rhetoric, always seems to move in extremes. So now it is about the President making good with everyone. But we should remember that President Roosevelt didn’t enter WW2 soon enough because of the country’s protectionist attitudes after WW1. And we should remember how worthwhile it was for President Harry Truman to desegregate the troops even though it almost cost him his reelection. Yes Obama should try to reach across the aisle more than Bush did. But reaching across too much might be counterproductive. The point of a representative democracy is to elect people who we think have good judgment, not to elect people to vote on how we think with our limited views. Let’s hope Obama doesn’t pamper we the people too much.

Looking Forward: Notes and Ideas for the Weeks Ahead

• Imagine if John Edwards were still politically viable. He’d probably be Attorney General, meaning he’d go after everybody on Wall Street in light of this financial turmoil with the sole purpose of making headlines by playing class warfare. It would have been extraordinarily counterproductive and made Spitzer/Giuliani look like benevolent prosecutors. Thankfully, he was busted for who he is.
• In a previous piece, I argued that If Obama wins he should choose McCain for Secretary of Defense. This will obviously not happen, but an added bonus for him would be that McCain would vacate his Senate seat. This in turn would give AZ Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano the power to fill his seat with a Democrat, meaning that the Democrats would be closer to the filibuster proof sixty seat majority.
• Speaking of getting sixty seats, Obama should consider that type of thinking by looking at Republican senators who come from states with Democratic governors. He could choose Judd Gregg from New Hampshire for Commerce Secretary or Homeland Security since he has experience on those matters.  TN Republican Lamar Alexander for Education and Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley for Agriculture  also come to mind. Obama can defend these choices in the name of bipartisanship while these Senators should consider these positions because they are old and are effectively powerless as Republicans.
• If Ted Stevens pulls of the Senatorial win, he will have to step down because of his conviction on seven counts of bribery. This means that Governor Sarah Palin can choose who she likes to replace him. She should consider herself for the job. It would eliminate her from the 2012 Republican nomination, but it would give her a national platform. She wouldn’t face another election until 2014, meaning that she could really buff up on the issues for 2016 or 2020.
• Republicans are already trashing Barack Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. It’s pointless to do given that every Chief of Staff is partisan, and he engineered moderate measures like NAFTA through Congress in the Clinton White House. Obama will certainly give them food for fodder, but this is not it. Republicans should learn that old cliche: Pick your Battles.
• Emanuel’s choice should also reassure wary Jewish voters. Given that Emanuel is openly Jewish and a steadfast supporter of Israel, it’s hard for anyone to truly believe that Obama will be anti-Israel. Former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleisher should quit trashing Obama on Israel.
• Liberals consistently make sweeping generalizations about how the world hates the Bush Administration and Democrats need to repair the US’s image around the world. But many countries have appreciated, or at least have somewhat appreciated Bush’s foreign policy. Including, but not limited to: Australia; India; China; many countries in Africa; Japan; Turkey; and Colombia. On Australia, lets see if Obama continues Bush’s warm outreach. During the election, McCain went out of his way to write an op-ed praising them; Obama did not. In the primaries, Obama’s campaign trashed Hillary Clinton’s relationship with India. Will he show steadfast support for India’s nuclear ambitions? Will he alienate India’s Hindus by speaking about their persecution of Christians? Does Obama alienate the Chinese government by bringing up the Tibet issue, or does he only speak about it infrequently like Bush? Will he continue Bush’s successful AIDS program in Africa? And will he employ Bush’s realpolitik of not really speaking about human rights violations in Africa in return for vital information about terrorists? Japan was offended when the Bush Administration recently started to engage North Korea because they fear that America would not defend them from North Korea. Obama supported these talks; McCain did not. Will he change his position or will he alienate Japan? The Turkish government was very upset when Pelosi, Obama, and other Democrats wanted to bring up a resolution condemning their genocide of Armenians in the 1920s. Will he back away from this or will he bring it up? And Turkey desperately wants stability in Iraq, so how will Obama consider that? Colombia really wanted a free trade deal passed this year. Bush, McCain, and Republicans gladly supported it, but Obama did not. Will Obama make good with Colombia? These are all complex foreign policy questions that Bush has a mixed record on— certainly not a “horrible” record. Let’s see how the whiz kid will do.