How to Criticize Our Next President

I wish President-elect Obama well, and hope that even his critics can concede that he waged a successful and often brilliant (if not shrewdly stealthy) campaign.

It seems to me that conservatives have a golden opportunity to offer criticism and advice in a manner that many liberals did not during the last eight years. By that I mean I hope there are no conservative versions of the Nicholson Baker Knopf-published ‘novel’ Checkpoint, the creepy documentary by Gerald Range, the attempt to name a sewer plant after an American President, or the celebrity outbursts that we have witnessed with the tired refrain of Hitler/Nazi Bush—that all have cheapened political discourse. When I hear a partisan insider like Paul Begala urging at the 11th hour that we now rally around lame-duck Bush in his last few days, I detect a sense of apprehension that no Democrats would wish conservatives to treat Obama as they did Bush for eight years.

In the future, criticism should be offered in unified pro-American tones, rather than anti-Obama screeds. When disagreements arise, they should be couched in a sense of regret rather than ebullition. There should be no conservative counterparts of Bill Maher, Michael Moore, or Al Franken.

Note the Iraqis immediately rushing to say Obama surely won’t pull out of the Iraq prematurely. Note secondly that just recently they were grandstanding that we had to leave. I had noted earlier a Zen-like possibility with an Obama victory: those who counted on Bush-Hitler to both defend them and be a big target for their cheap anti-Americanism, might not like going it alone as equal “partners” in the much praised “multilateral” fashion.

Obama may just say “We are right behind you when you deal with Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, etc.” Note again, as Europe goes wild over Obama, the subtext is, “This would never happen here.” After all, we Amis have had African-American secretaries-of-state for eight years (well over a quarter-century ago Andrew Young was UN ambassador)—and still no Turkish-German Foreign Minister or Congolese-French Prime Minister? In some sense, Obama will bring welcome moral clarity to foreign relations, because if he really is a multilateralist, current opportunistic foreign dependencies will be forced to weigh in on multilateralism.

On the Taboo of Race

The landmark consequences of electing the first African-American President dominated the news cycle for the last 24-hours. But just as importantly, we have forgotten that we have chosen the most hard left candidate since Henry Wallace assumed the Vice Presidency, in a transparent fashion without fraud or deception. That marks a landmark shift in American attitudes, like it or not. And no one reported on that anomaly, or on the fact that Obama was the first northern liberal to be elected since JFK—or even the first senator to make it since JFK (and LBJ via the Vice Presidency).

On matters of race, at some point the country will evolve beyond the current narrative of the last day that runs something like—‘You redeemed yourself by voting for Barack, and now we can all say we are truly Americans’. The problem with that understandable sentiment is a number of its corollaries: ‘Unless you support European socialist solutions offered by a charismatic African-American candidate, then you confirm America as a quasi-racist nation.’ And this thought: African-Americans voted for a black candidate at a 95% rate; Hispanics at perhaps 75%; yet the country was judged as free of racial tribalism on the basis of whether whites voted for a black candidate far to the left of any Democratic nominee during the last three decades in pluralities greater than they did for past white Democratic candidates like Gore or Kerry. And they did!

It will be interesting when the first Hispanic candidate wins to see whether Mexican-American citizens en masse reaffirm the country to be finally fulfilling its promise—and what would be the reaction of African-Americans and Asians to such ethnic solidarity.

This solidarity may be a natural reaction, but something is still puzzling about hours of television showing African-American ecstasy based on apparent racial pride rather than glee that someone of Obama’s views was elected—all often editorialized by teary-eyed objective journalists. A person from Mars who watched this post-election celebration, might study the popular reaction to the Obama victory and become puzzled: “Aren’t people now saying pretty much what Michelle Obama said twice, and to great criticism, during the campaign: that the emergence of Barack Obama was occasion for many to have pride in their country for the first time?”

Be careful Barack

When off the teleprompter, natural exuberance takes over. The day before the election, Obama was praising his late grandmother and I heard him say that his grandmother, born in 1922, had witnessed both world wars (including 1914-1918?). In his acceptance speech, Obama mentioned that he might not achieve all his aims in “one term”—so we are talking about dynasties of two terms before even assuming office? We remember likewise he kept saying we are only going back to the Clinton tax hikes (up to 40% on top brackets), while omitting the 15.3% FICA and Medicare taxes once the caps are to be eliminated. And we remember that he kept saying he was going to pay for (a trillion dollars worth of) entitlements in large part by “ending that war” (which even by his figures was running at about $100 billion or so now a year (we would need to be in Iraq another 10 years to waste enough that would have gone to new social programs?))

Second Stimulus

After running up the annual deficit to a near half-a-trillion dollars in stimuli rebates and bailouts, now we are to send checks out again for subsidies for food, housing, and power? And how to pay for it? And the consequences of looking for others to channel money to be redistributed? At some point, there should be some overarching exegesis to explain all this. Something like: ‘Compensation is arbitrary and not based on either fairness or logic. So government is necessary to make the needed corrections and to redistribute in the way a flawed market cannot.’ At least then we could learn the logic involved.

We are going to witness a gargantuan struggle among the Obama camp in the next 90 days. On the one hand, the following argument will be advanced:

“Look, Barack, we have a historical opportunity with the Congress, the honeymoon, voter momentum, and your communicative brilliance. Carpe diem!”

“Liberals will never have such a window again, so let’s move full blast with Axlerod, Emanuel, and the Chicago Boys before they know what hit them: make lots of hard-left appointments for agency heads, executive branch controllers and cabinet posts; restore the fairness doctrine and get talk radio out of the picture as it was pre-1987; empower unions with an end to secret elections; move on de facto amnesty and keep the borders porous, given how the continually replenished illegal alien community, with periodic amnesties, evolves into Democratic constituencies in key states; go for BOTH tax increases on income up to 40% and ending the FICA caps so you can get another 15.3%. That way we can pay for some of these new programs. Try to create a national health care system akin to Canada’s. Don’t just go for the agenda, but for structural changes that will make it almost impossible for conservatives to win again. Now with incumbency, restore campaign financing in all its manifestations, lest some Republican gets smart and emulates our money-raising strategies. And while we are at it, why not call in Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Bush neocons and charge them with war crimes for Guantanamo and water-boarding?”

“Wait! LBJ, Nixon, and others all blew their mandates. Festina lente (‘make haste slowly’). Remember the Clintonian 1993-4 debacle with gays in the military, Hillarycare, Les Aspen at Defense (cf. his no armor in Somalia decision), Travelgate, etc, so we don’t need more hubris that means calling in another Dick Morris and triangulation to save the Obama presidency. Either raise income tax or lift FICA caps, but don’t do both unless you want to gut, not shear, the sheep. Throw the loonies looking for jobs under the bus where they can join Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, etc. Adopt the Petraeus withdrawal plan, but claim it was really the “Obama” plan all along. Turn over the cabinet to Larry Summers and Robert Rubin types and a few Republican-lites like Chuck Hagel.”

So we will see who wins—or whether Obama votes “present,” and the sides go to and fro, back and forth ad nauseam. Beware, we will hear soon a Reaganesque “Let Obama be Obama!”—if we knew exactly what that would mean?

Sarah Palin

There was something bothersome about the treatment of Sarah Palin. Her final campaign appearances and interviews showed calm, poise and competence. Her charm galvanized the base. And yet the hard Left on day one reduced her to a Neanderthal creationist. The DC-NY Republican grandees demonized her as a cancerous bimbo who spoke in a patois and represented a culture that was an anathema. Now after heroic campaign work, she returns to Alaska with leaks that she was a diva, appeared in a bathrobe, and threw things, as failed strategists grasp at scapegoats for their lapses. I hope she completes her term, runs for Senate, and comes back to DC to haunt her critics. Long after 2008, we shall remember that an Atlantic Mazagine blogger for days on end trafficked in rumors that her own daughter delivered her mother’s Down Syndrome child. That smear says it all.

Let me understand the current media analysis of John McCain: 2000—“Old” John McCain runs against the more conservative George Bush and loses, so he’s declared principled and good; mid-2008—“new” John McCain runs against a messianic Barack Obama and could win, so he’s ruthless, quasi-racist, and bad; late 2008—“new-old” John McCain loses against Obama and makes a typically gracious speech, so suddenly he’s the new ‘old’ John McCain again?

We, of course, wish to be liked abroad. But there are reasons why in many cases we are not. That is, many governments welcome authoritarians. They prefer tribal, religious, and racial chauvinism compared to our diverse plurality. They like class hierarchies and resent our mobility. They prefer statism, are anti-democratic, and have contempt for consumer capitalism. So why would we wish governments currently composed of radical Palestinians, Iranians, Venezuelans, North Koreans, Syrians, or Russians to like or admire us? While we would wish not to gratuitously excite their ire, their empathy toward us should make us worried not relieved. Who cares whether the royal House of Saud is happy over the election, or those in the Iranian parliament or the activists of Hezbollah?

1. No one will again trust the media to report objectively a general election. Turn on NBC or CNN or read the front page of the NY Times, and you will expect an editorial for the more liberal candidate without pretense of objectivity.
2. Public financing is over as a bipartisan tradition. The Democrats may try to resurrect it, once as incumbents they see advantages in limiting fund raising, but no one will ever again believe the mantra of big money + big politics = sleaze
3. Colin Powell. Now a tragic figure. His endorsement of Obama came too late to appear principled (at a time of Obama’s soaring ratings rather than, say, in mid-September when McCain was ahead). And when he had nicer public things to say of the crooked Ted Stevens than he did the principled hero John McCain, one remembered that his former subordinate Mr. Armitage once apparently knew that Mr. Libby had been charged with a crime that was not a crime, and if it were, Mr. Armitage himself had privately admitted that he was the culpable party. Surely Armitage should have been fired or at least reprimanded by Mr. Powell.
4. Obamacons. The timing and rationale for conservatives jumping for Obama became suspect not because of their decision per se, but because it came late, and was often without an explanation of why Obama’s tax or spending plan, or foreign policy, or proposed new entitlements were superior to John McCain’s.
They will be orphaned since there are too many more liberal in line ahead of them to enjoy Obama’s graces, and they burned their bridges with their former conservative supporters. Had any of them simply said in March, “I am for Obama since I think he is a superior candidate to Clinton, Giuliani, Romney and McCain because his preference for a European-model is to be welcomed”, I think they would seem mavericks and issue-orientated thinkers rather than opportunistic.
5. Beltway Republicans. When the conservative party spends wildly, runs up deficits and justifies them by citing percentages of GDP rather than apologies for trillions borrowed, gives us the likes of the criminally-minded such as Cunningham, Abramoff, and Stevens, the morally dubious like Craig and Foley, and the sycophantic like a Scott McClellan or FEMA’s “Brownie” and the other incompents in high-profile administration jobs, then don’t they naturally lose?
Fiscal restraint.

The promises of bailouts and fiscal reprieves from the two candidates were like two Roman emperors outbidding each other for the services of the Praetorian Guard in order to become coronated. Not a word where the borrowing would ultimately come from, how it would be paid back, or how the indebted incurred their obligations in the first place.

As a self-interested columnist, I would hope Obama reassumes his natural hard-left position of his 1996-2005 period that would provide both plentiful column topics and prove counterproductive to his I fear scary agenda. But as an American, I surely hope he doesn’t, and so wish him personally well, and success as a possible centrist commander-in-chief that advances American interests.

They tried to back a President that had no idea what he was doing financially. They placed the party above the principles and in the end it blew up in their face.

In some ways the limited government and fiscal conservatives were shut out of government in favor of the compassionate or neocons.

We have seen our share of loonies on the right this past two years.

Like?

Face it. The Dems play this game in the mud and for the most part, our side refuses to because the media has already created the facade that the Republican Party is a bunch of thugs who care more about Big Business and Big Money than they do about the common American. This causes the Republican Party to constantly be on the defensive and constantly take the high road so as to not look like thugs. What they should be doing is claiming the premise as false and showing examples of what happens WORLDWIDE when Big Government is chosen over PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Obama didn't fully explain HIS OWN POLICIES. And those that he did, he has no proven record of demonstrating that that is how he will do things. Until he starts in his new role, nobody knows for sure if his campaign was "JUST WORDS" or if he will really push Congress to enact his lousy plans.

Very well written. Normally I don't continue reading if it is either leftist propaganda or preaching to the choir.

There is one thing I would like to add and one thing I would like to respectfully disagree on. It's Friday night in Asia, so forgive me if I am not as lucid as I think I am.

The one thing I have noticed is that our biggest detractors under the Bush administration all have lurched to the right. Canada now has an overwhelmingly conservative government. Italy, Germany and France have elected center right governments. England most likely will in the next year. Israel may elect the Likud to run the country.

It seems to me the world likes a weak America, but they shit themselves when it may actually happen.

The point where I disagree is on the bailout. To my very fibre I wish it didn't need to happen, but it did. Bank failures are 4-5 times more expensive than bank rescues. The unwinding of a bank is so monumentally complicated and costly. Lehman, as bad as it was, was nothing compared to a domino effect. The US would be bankrupt if Lehman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Wachovia and Washington Mutual all failed. The costs would be compounded to the extent it would be 100 times more costly to us.

The depression wasn't caused by the massive deleveraging of the financial system, it was caused by bank failures. People's savings evaporated. The FDIC was created to stop bank runs. Wamu alone would've bankrupted the FDIC.

Bush and Paulson failed to explain this bailout properly (shocker). The US has determined which banks are worth saving and which ones need to be married to the ones worth saving. They gave them the money they think the banks need to remain solvent. The banks in turn have issued the Treasury (tax payer) preferred stock with, I believe, a 10% coupon).

By any measure the Treasury has structured a capital investment no different than other foreign banks, sovereign wealth funds and Warren Buffet have. The other parties are not expecting to lose money on their investments and neither is the US.

This is where the public needs to be informed. The profits made from this, and there will be profits, can not be used for anything else but to pay down US debt.

In the next year or so, the banks will be more solvent and can pay down this debt and make whole the loans. The congress, republican or democrat, will try and spend that windfall on garbage. We need to make sure that it is used for one thing and one thing only, and that is retirement of US debt. That is the only way the US taxpayer will see the benefits of their investment. Politicians will try and tell you otherwise. Do not believe them (as if I need to tell freepers). This is the danger of the bailout. Sorry for ranting. Hope it was informative.

This isn’t about a politician. This is the reality we face today.

How can you say this? The policies enacted or NOT enacted by Congress affect our lives directly every day! There was a brilliant piece that was placed on to FR a few months ago. It went something like this:

If CONGRESS wanted the U.S. to be energy independent, we would be so TODAY.

If CONGRESS wanted to lessen spending, they could do so TODAY.

If CONGRESS wanted to give back to Americans the freedoms that they have already stolen, they could do so TODAY.

If CONGRESS wanted SS, Medicare and the tax code fixed, they could do so TODAY.

Truth is, they like to manipulate us and they like to be in control. They like for us to be dependent on them.

Liberal = Gives you a fish and then waits for you to come back the next day for another.

Conservative = Teaches you how to fish

Democratic wings……. http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/politics/003482.php

September 02, 2008
Is Obama McKay? Robert Redford in The Candidate: "image, popularity and money trump experience and ideas"

Sound eerily familiar? I'll be watching this when it plays on TCM tomorrow tonight 10:15 EST. I haven't seen it in years, but I remember the movie closes with a classic line by Redford you won't want to miss - something we don't want to see in November (see the bottom of this post for the spoiler). From Turner Classic Movies host Ben Mankiewicz in Now Playing:

Truth is, I'd love to play some small role in reducing political apathy - yet I'm telling you to see The Candidate anyway. First, it's a terrific film. Second, it's full of what politics is capable of - part inspiration, part aspiration.

Robert Redford is Bill McKay, a young, handsome liberal lawyer. He's also the son of California's popular former governor played wonderfully by Melvyn Douglas. A shrewd political consultant (Peter Boyle) recruits Redford to run a hopeless campaign against the powerful incumbent Republican senator. But in the process, Redford figures he'll speak frankly about causes important to him.

However, since he's good-looking and has great name recognition, Boyle's character knows the race will tighten and he subtly manipulates Redford into behaving more like a traditional politician. Redford (Obama) all but abandons important issues as the campaign morphs into little more than a traveling catch-phrase "For a Better Way, Bill McKay!" (Hope, Yes we can!)

The movie suggests that image, popularity and money trump experience and ideas. (I can already hear you doing your best Claude Rains: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that style is defeating substance here.") But there isn't any heavy-handed preaching here. In fact, the script (an Oscar winner for former Eugene McCarthy speechwriter Jeremy Larner) is quick and funny...

Finally, McKay (Obama) won. He panics, knowing he's all hype as it sinks in that the public just bought it. He helplessly asks, in the last line of the movie: "What do we do now?"

However, in 2001 and 2003 if you were a Republican who was opposed to tax cuts then you were a sell out. It didn’t matter that there were no cuts in spending being offered to offset the impact. If you were angry about how badly the administration was handling Iraq then you were a traitor, a RINO and a sellout.

I will agree with the cuts in spending, but the tax CUTS brought in record revenue. We are where we are right now because A LOT of greedy people placed their hands in the Housing Cookie Jar. And it exploded just like the Dot Com Cookie Jar did. Only thing is that the REPUBLICANS have been trying to reel in Fannie and Freddie and DEMOCRATS like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd became permanent road blocks. And who gets the blame? You guessed it. Bush.

There are a lot of things that I wished that Bush could have accomplished domestically, but the President cannot do anything unless he has a Congress which is willing to work with him. SS Reform? Shot down. Tax Reform? Shot down. What did they work with him on? EXPANDING the long arm of Government Education and trying for a Comprehensive Immigration Plan.

In A LOT of ways, limited Government and Fiscal Conservatives were completely ignored.

One of the only saving graces is that we got Justices Roberts and Alito.

Tax cuts are a great way to stimulate the economy provided you don’t increase spending. My point was that those people who raised an issue of cutting taxes without accounting for spending were not listened to.

And, in the interest of keeping their jobs instead of conducting the people’s business Congress went along with a host of plans that were for their betterment. Earmarks, pork, social programs and government expansion instead of reform, reduction and limiting government.

Bush did nothing on any of this stuff.

media has already created the facade that the Republican Party is a bunch of thugs who care more about Big Business and Big Money than they do about the common American.

If I owned a business now- like I used to- I wopuld make sure that I would survive—no matter how many employees I would have to lay off.

After all- I am the one who put up the capital to start the business.
I am the one who has to meet all the bills to run the business.
I am the one who put my life into the cement mixer and worked my butt off-far more than the 40 hour weeks the “burdened common people” think is all they can handle.

In short- even if I had to cut back to me and me alone, I would survive.

I don’t owe those “common man” employees anything other than a paycheck at the end of the pay period that doesn’t bounce.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.