Post Partisanship: The Deal Obama and McCain Should Make

Throughout the campaign trail, Obama and McCain consistently talk about their desire to move beyond traditional party lines. Obama communicates this with his echoes of “change” and frustration over “petty politics.” McCain’s favorite slogans are “reform” and “bipartisanship.” Both have committed to choosing a diverse cabinet. Obama holds Sec. Robert Gates and Sen. Dick Lugar in high regards, while McCain shows deep affection for Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Sen. Gary Hart. Obama even extols far-right Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and McCain boasts about his work with far-left Sen. Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform. That’s all nice and good. But if these two men want to show genuine boldness, Obama should choose McCain for Secretary of Defense if he prevails or the self- proclaimed maverick should pick the brilliant Harvard Law Review President for Attorney General if he wins.

            Any honest Washington defense official will admit that the Pentagon is bloated. Yet the problem is it is horrible politics to stall or decrease funding for defense. This is in no way to diminish the importance of a strong defense for the United States. This is a dangerous world, which requires the most advanced nuclear capabilities. And there is no other nation on earth who could commit hundreds of billions of dollars to rescuing broken financial institutions while being able to borrow money at almost zero percent. America’s financial strength and flexibility is strongly correlated to its military strength. This does not mean that America needs a four hundred plus billion dollar military budget, which by the way leaves out the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Obama brought McCain into his administration, McCain would have the political authority to truly reform the Pentagon. He could cut a lot of the fat out without being accused of being weak on defense. President Dwight Eisenhower provides us with a terrific historical example. After leading the front in World War II, he had enough defense credibility as President to dismiss the Pentagon’s cries for more money. Could you imagine the political repercussions of Barack Obama cutting defense funding with an all Democrat cabinet? He would need a McCain like figure to do such a thing.  In addition to using McCain’s ability to reform defense, he can use his counsel on foreign affairs. He might be uninterested in economic matters, but no one questions his inquisitiveness and knowledge concerning foreign policy. It is in McCain’s interest to accept because this would be a meaningful swan song. He would never get to be President, but he would make an indelible mark from the executive branch. Being President is certainly the top job, but fifty years from now a lot more people will read about Secretary Kissinger than President Carter.

            McCain’s real ambition is to make Washington a less corrupt and more honorable place to carry out the people’s work. So if he were to win, he would not have to look much further than the Justice Department for a place that desperately needs reform. During the Bush Administration, it has primarily served narrow Republican interests. This phenomenon has always existed, but it has been amplified in recent years. Bush made a mockery of it by appointing the incompetent Alberto Gonzales who almost exclusively investigated Democrats, circumvented laws against torture, and illegally eavesdropped on American citizens. To palliate this damage, McCain would be wise to give Obama a chance to make a meaningful difference at the federal level. Not even the most partisan Republicans would dispute Obama’s legal qualifications. From Obama’s perspective, it would give him an opportunity to quell the animadversion that he cannot work with Republicans and that he has no meaningful accomplishments under his belt. This would position him well for a future presidential run.

            When David Brooks visited the University of Chicago last May, he talked about a recent dinner he had with former Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry. He said that the one pledge Kerry was absolutely going to carry through on was his commitment to bring Republicans into his cabinet. Brooks said that Kerry felt excessive partisanship hamstrung he and his colleagues from making Washington work. It is possible that Kerry pandered to Brooks during this dinner. And it is plausible that Obama and McCain are employing old-fashioned empty rhetoric to get elected. But if they are serious and want to improve the U.S. government, they should consider such an idea. It is certainly on the idealistic side, but it is an idealism that could genuinely help unite this country after November 4th, when just under fifty percent of voters will walk away unhappy.

Thinking Ahead: Why Smart Republicans Should Want John McCain to Lose

When the sub-prime junk surfaced in the fall of 2007, financial companies were struck with two options. They could either come clean or avoid telling the truth. The smarter ones wrote down many of their  worthless debt instruments. Of course the share prices of those companies plummeted,  but in the end most of them will survive. Others deferred doing that and are suffering much more as a result. In basketball, the Boston Celtics made some questionable moves in the 2003-2004 season, forcing fans  to wonder if the team’s recent trades were in their best interest. In the short-term they were not, evidenced by two consecutive first round losses followed by two years of missing the playoffs altogether. The Celtics’ front office is now extolled for those moves  because it gave them salary cap space to trade for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett last season. With those signings, the Celtics had an historic regular season, capped off by an NBA Championship. Republicans are faced with a similar dilemma now. Do they want some power now, or should they ante up for 2012?

There is a reason why Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and many other conservatives were rooting against McCain in the Republican primaries. The heart of the party does not find him to be an authentic Republican. When speaking about the abortion issue in 1999, McCain remarked, “certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” On the economy, he was adamantly against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. More telling than that is his deep admiration for former President Teddy Roosevelt. He consistently says that Roosevelt is his favorite President. The chief reason behind this sentiment is Roosevelt was profoundly skeptical of the markets. He was an anti-trust crusader who went after big business. Modern-day Republicans believe in the magic of the markets and very rarely advocate for government intervention. These are two of a myriad of policy differences between McCain and the base.

Another glaring reality the base faces is McCain has always boasted of his bipartisan approach in Washington. So even on issues where McCain is in lockstep with die-hard Republicans, those are jeopardized by his desire to work with Democrats. And it is almost a guarantee Democrats will have a sizable majority in Congress.

The most reasonable grounds to root against McCain is the President usually takes the blame for the nation’s ills. Republicans certainly have the right to take partial credit for President Clinton’s successes in the 90’s because they held power in the legislative branch. And some of the mistakes made in the last two years lies with the Democrats in Congress. Yet those political science arguments generally do not resonate with the average American voter. Given the nation’s current economic and foreign policy struggles, things in all likelihood will be no better in 2012. If Obama wins and withdraws from Iraq, he’ll blamed for the probable violence that will break out. If he stays there, he will be considered a liar and fiscally irresponsible for reneging on his promise. If he prioritizes reducing the deficit, Republicans will condemn him for not following through on his promised health care and educational benefits. If he sticks to his campaign policy prescriptions, conservatives will scoff at his profligate spending. They will argue that he has nothing to show for his spending, except for excessive deficits. Obama could, and probably will be, intellectually correct in  these scenarios.  It will obviously take a while to see tangible benefits from increased funding in pre-kindergarten expenditures. Yet, Republicans will write something like that off as wasteful spending. If McCain is at the helm, they cannot make these arguments.

David Brooks, David Frum, and other intellectual bigwigs in the Republican party foolishly expatiate about the dénouement of conservatism. Their faulty logic says conservative thought reemerged with Ronald Reagan and is now moribund because of increased income inequality. If they were around in 1964, these thinkers would’ve said that liberalism was the exclusive political philosophy in America in light of Lyndon B. Johnson’s dazzling victory. They would have said that conservatism was over after Richard Nixon betrayed the party’s principles. All of this is unalloyed hokum. America has and always will be a center-right country, with liberal sprinkles when times start to get tough. If Obama wins, the conservatives might be able to execute an impressive political comeback in 2012. If McCain wins, they will have an epigone of Reagan who will be forced to take the blame. And liberalism will take more prominence, something that irritates the heck out of Republicans.

Unasked Questions: Policy Topics That Should Be Addressed in the Coming Months

The upcoming policy questions that the media will ask of the presidential candidates are pretty predictable. In terms of foreign policy, they will question Obama and McCain’s respective stands on the surge and long-term strategies in Iraq. They will bring up the bromide about how the Bush Administration “took their eye off the ball in Afghanistan.” What to do about Russia, Iran, and North Korea will certainly be covered. And they will throw in a cursory question about the United States’ moral responsibility to ameliorate the hardships in Darfur.  On the oh so famous “economy” questions, they will probe each candidate’s tax plan. They will try, but  fail, in getting substantive answers on what Obama and McCain will specifically spend less on besides “pork.” McCain will advocate for more free market solutions on healthcare, education, and energy while Obama will accent the need for more government intervention.  There are a few questions, however, that have been mostly ignored, but have major implications for the United States.

The debate over whether or not the U.S. should help India further their nuclear capabilities is a crucial one. By virtue of the fact that India has a growing economy and is the second most populated country in the world makes all Indian military questions extraordinarily important. Yet the question of lifting a 34 year-old ban on selling them nuclear fuel  has much broader implications. Firstly, it gives the voter a sense of how much McCain and Obama value international agreements. The rationale behind the current ban is that India refused to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1974. If McCain and/or Obama ignore the treaty, it is legitimate to question if they would stand by an international agreement when it does not suit their interests. Would the U.S. shy away  from protecting a NATO member if a certain member were attacked by Russia? Secondly, many speculate that the US wants India to have additional nuclear capabilities to counterbalance China, an emerging superpower in that region. If probed enough, the voter can get a clue in to how these candidates will approach China. Answering this India question also shows where these candidates stand on nuclear power. India says having more nuclear fuel will lessen their dependence on fossil fuels and thereby reduce their impact on global warming. Do these candidates buy this argument?

Syria is another country that has major foreign policy implications. Do these candidates think that there is a real possibility of a peace deal between Israel and Syria? Is McCain willing to distance himself from Bush’s rhetoric against Israel engaging Syria? Do they have any issue with  Sarkozy’s recent meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, given that he is the first Western leader to meet with him since 2005. Is the West capable of making Syria distance itself from Iran? If so, how can they? Getting these candidates to talk about rarely asked foreign policy matters lets us into their brain more than the constant reiteration of their plans for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The one  economic issue that unites both left and right, nonprofit and for profit people is the vital need to revive the US’s crumbling infrastructure. Practically all American journalists who went to the Beijing Olympics commented on the magnificent airport there vis-a -vis the almost dysfunctional airports in New York City. In addition to airports, this country needs to repair highways, railroads, and schools. The debate arises over how to do this. The left wants the government to take it over to create “living wages.” The right wants to privatize it for higher quality and efficiency. On August 26th, the Wall Street Journal wrote about this current debate  in Pennsylvania over their Turnpike. With Goldman Sachs leading the way, there is an ample amount of money willing to finance this project. Yet, unions are against it because they fear an increase in toll prices with a decrease in wages. Surprisingly, Democratic governor Ed Rendell supports this measure because of the  increases in efficiency, elimination of cronyism, and cap on price increases. Similar arguments are expected over Chicago’s Midway Airport and key roads in Florida. As the piece shows, the federal government is not absolved from such issues. With the Interstate highway system as it is, the government will play a major role. Barack Obama and John McCain will hopefully have a healthy debate over privatization. 

There are countless questions that are not asked that certainly should be. But  these three questions, in particular, will give us a much better understanding of how these two men plan to govern. McCain says he significantly differs from Bush on foreign policy, but will he demonstrate a much higher regard for international law? Does McCain see potential progress with Syria, or does he permanently consider them a member of the “axis of evil”? Meanwhile, Obama loves to talk in generalities about his appreciation and admiration for the free market, but does that apply to infrastructure? Good questions give voters specific answers and provide them with a window into who these candidates are. These items achieve that. Ideally, someone will bring them up.