It’s Obama, and by a bigger margin than I’d anticipated. Much bigger.
And the speeches – both McCain’s and the President-Elect’s – were magnificent.
John McCain is a helluva man, and he showed us why he deserved to be the Republican candidate, and why he deserved a better campaign.
Barack Obama’s speech hit the right notes for me – inclusive, hopeful, determined.
I am hopeful that that’s the keynote for his Administration. And watching, to see what my President will do.
Our president, in spite of everything.
Bravo! to the new leader of the Anglosphere, and to all his supporters.
You do know the primary meaning of that word, and the expression, don’t you? “In defiance, scorn or contempt of”. Even I wouldn’t go that far. 1/2 ๐
Before the drinks wear off (for both sides) and the carpet bombing begins in the morning, i want to say something to my fellows from the rightish side of the aisle, if I could:
This is not the time for sour grapes and for swimming against the tide. We deserve to have lost for any number of reasons, but ultimately because we have talked the talk but not walked the walk. Look down the list of the Contract with America, and just see how many of those ideals have been betrayed on our own watch, and you will know why Reaganism as we knew it gave its rattling death gasp tonight. Not because the idea failed, but because the messengers became corrupt and forgot the message.
Watching Obama tonight, I think we have been shadow boxing with demons of our own imaginations for a long time now. I understand why. We have spent years delineating why, we needn’t continue to parrot our complaints, nor imagining our ideological opponents have felt any less set upon for their own reasons.
Tonight i saw a gracious John McCain, ever the patriot, extend a genuine hand of friendship and respect to his foe. And i saw President Elect Obama reach back out with both hands.
Now that surely doesnt mean we need to muzzle ourselves, or put our ideas to bed. It means we need to play the role we have long accused the Democrats of not playing. The loyal opposition. And not just in words, but in deeds.
There are going to be many fights ahead, and thats all to the good. It means our ideas will get a fresh day in the public square, and maybe this time we will do them justice. But it also means we have the chance to give an American President the support he needs to complete the dreams and aspirations that all Americans share. Some of the dreams GW Bush started. Obama deserves the chance to do this, and not only would it be politically suicidal and morally bankrupt to not give him his chance, it would be hypocritical. Political payback is a sweet but ultimately empty fruit.
Support this president. Guide him as best our voices can. Part ways where we must. And prepare our ideas for the day the country is receptive to them again. We have a chance to cool the partisan tempers for a while and concentrate on the good of the nation. Let’s not pass that up. I think we all need the rest.
Republicans basically had no answer for health care, which allowed the party to be defined as unreliable on economic issues. People just seem to be fed up with the ad hoc approach Rs seem to prefer, doing as little as possible and only when they’re dragged by the ears.
That said, Obama had the advantage of four major variables: economy, campaign spending, media, and youth/novelty. There was no incumbent advantage this time, but he’ll have it in four years. Yet, with all that, he won with a vote margin of only about 4%. Moreover, at this point it looks like “defense of marriage” initiatives are passing in California and Florida, and “civil rights” initiatives are passing in Nebraska and Colorado (not sure about the latter). The returns in CA are only about 45% in, so that could change, but all of the polls conducted prior to today seemed to indicate the measure would be defeated. And if they can’t defeat such a measure on the coattails of a huge Democrat victory, perhaps they should give it up… or define what they’re after a little better and with a little more awareness of the role of marriage in society.
The civil rights initiatives were rejections of affirmative action, which is a concept that hasn’t been very popular with Americans for a long time. Only high-toned elites seem to favor it nowadays.
So it’s hard to see tonight’s vote as an endorsement of the Moveon/Kos program, or anything like it. It’s more like a confident people feel they can take a risk with an untried leader because they really do value substantive and effective change. And they’ll sour pretty quickly if they get some warmed-over programs out of the Great Society era.
Finally, the Democrats will now have to do all the unpleasant but necessary heavy lifting. They’ve got the helm, but their navigation chart is a little off and there are some dangerous shoals ahead.
That might seem slightly unsweet to some people, but I’d be more inclined to be gracious had not Obama annihilated all restraints on campaign fund raising, not just the “free speech” constraints, but apparently the ethical and legal ones too. (Well, we can’t be sure. Perhaps all he’s hiding in that database is a good bread recipe.) I don’t know how that genie ever gets back in the bottle. And this is a huge loss for the country, not just Republicans. The latter will never get caught out by that trick again.
I’m afraid I’m incapable of contributing positivity as set by the tone in AL’s top post / entry. Blackfive’s got a nearer bead on my sentiments in a couple of current posts, but I’ll spare you the linking, just as I’ll spare Mr Buehner the fisking I feel moved to deliver.
May we all get much better than we seem to deserve out of all this.
In particular, may the reality that in America, in 2009, a black man and his family can enter the White House while being played “Hail to the Chief”, do some good for the people who have considered themselves dispossessed for however long they have felt that way.
That just might be the high point of the next four years. The President-elect wants me to hope? OK. I hope it’s not all downhill from there.
If there ever was a convincing argument for American Exceptionalism, it was demonstrated tonight. Congratulation to our President-Elect on a stunning achievement.
TOC, in followup to what you’ve just said: Call me crazy. But in my secular way, I pray for the day when anyone who says “my race” means the human race. I expect it’ll take a while longer.
for once, I am bereft of hypocrisy. Feels strange to me to be absent my usual cynicism. This…wonderment?…is almost scary, and very unusual for me.
Just amazing – I can only chuckle and gaze in wide wonder.
It’s a night of firsts.
Re – final numbers, we are looking at a 6 to 7 point lead for the democrat – something not achieved since 1964.
Looking at the most votes cast for a president ever. (this always gets surpassed b/c of growing population, but still.)
Most donors ever to a campaign. Most money raised by a campaign.
And democrats actually had more money – when was the last time that happened?
Looking, of course, at 1st black man elected.
Looking at 1st son of an African father – is his the 1st son of a non-citizen father?
Of course- 1st guy with a name like ‘barack Hussein Obama.’
Truly, a night of 1st’s.
I hope, for all of our sakes, Obama is as good at executing in the office of the president, as he is in campaigning and running a campaign. Let’s all hope so,
I’ve tried to look at this as Frederick Douglas would, from the perspective of one and a half centuries.
The value of any achievement is relative to the means used to achieve it, and the means were not glorious. And there is no laurel left to give to Caesar Obama, since they were all heaped on him from the start.
The real achievement belongs to my beloved and maligned country, which has been slimed over and over as an engine of deliberate racism, but which reached a long way to embrace a black president. The praise belongs to America – not that I’m going to hold my breath waiting for it.
Whose view of America has been vindicated?
With Nort, I pray for the day when anyone who says “my race” means the human race. If this promotes that day then it will be worth everything and more, but if it sets it farther off then it is a damnable day indeed.
[Drive-by. BAM. Deleted. Mr Bellmore, thanks for playing. But this is not the thread. –NM]
#5 from Demosophist:
bq. _”So it’s hard to see tonight’s vote as an endorsement of the Moveon/Kos program, or anything like it.”_
Ask the Moveon/Kos Kids whether they won this night, or lost. And ask the Black supporters of Barack Obama, who voted as a racial monolith, whether they won this election or lost it.
The Moveon/Kos Kids campaign of these past eight years, since Chimpy BusHitler got “selected not elected” has been vindicated with a total, crashing victory, both legislative and executive, and the elevation of a president who was, totally without compromise, the radical they had hoped for.
It’s likely that many opinions they believe are right will now have the force of law behind them, and that the education of children will be directed to ends they prefer. I don’t know which ones, but Barack Obama seems to have a settled willingness to countenance the suppression of voices that speak against him, and education is a Left monopoly, so we should expect to see some consequences.
Not only have the Moveon/Kos brigades vindicated their cause, but they have proven the validity of their methods. Old style campaigning, as it was practiced by John McCain, will from now on be seen, correctly, as running to lose; while winners will adopt the methods of the Barack Obama campaign – and the Kos Kids are part of that.
If that’s not a big enough win to applaud, I don’t know what would be. Therefore I applaud. (APPLAUSE!)
Here’s Sailer’s “‘Affordable Family Formation’ perspective”:http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/11/affordable-family-formation.html on the geographic and thus cultural differences between places where folks are celebrating today, and places where they are glum.
My heartiest congratulations also to the great John Murtha (D-PA), who with his sterling victory has vindicated the political methods he’s used all his life. This is a sock on the jaw for those who don’t like those methods, or his remarks about the troops, and a defeat for any of the “racists” and “rednecks” he represents who don’t like the way he talks about them. No matter how much they hate it, he’s their representative, and he speaks for them, because the people have endorsed the John Murtha way.
There’s nothing for the Right to do but take it on the jaw, get medical treatment to reconstruct that jaw, and then come back and do everything the Left has done in reverse, but better, and for the benefit of different client blocks.
Admiring the winners and and internalizing the validity of their methods is part of the necessary education process for the Right.
I hope your hopes are realized!
Thank you for providing a forum and maintaining its civility.
I’m patiently waiting for the novelty to wear off for progressives or, more accurately, pseudo-progressives. What will be utterly fascinating for this leftist will be watching how they trim their rhetorical sails to President Obama’s moves to shore up the empire. Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghans, possibly Iranians, Bolivians, and Venezuelans will have their hands full now that adults have taken the reins. Pax Americana but with a smiley face. It should be interesting.
Speaking as a left-leaning African-American Chicagoan I can tell you that things are rather insufferable around here today. But this will pass.
Thanks for the link, AMac.
And I have a third and final cheer: for pro-choicers in California, who have defeated Proposition 4: (parental notification on abortion).
Yay the winners! Excellent work!
That’s THREE CHEERS! all up: for President-elect Barack Obama, Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) and for California pro-choicers.
HIP-HIP, HOORAY!
HIP-HIP, HOORAY!!
HIP-HIP, HOORAY!!!
I, on the other hand, will “point”:http://chizumatic.mee.nu/not_the_end_of_the_world to Steven Den Beste, who expresses my feelings well.
I am warning republicans- if we come out swinging at Obama before he even has a bill cross his desk we are going to make things worse and miss an opportunity. Remember the first law of holes.
Let Obama set his cabinet and have his (no doubt overly lavish) inauguration. Keep you eye on the ball and wait for your pitch. Take Obama at his words and remind the country of them, in a positive way. And if and when he fails to live up to his promises, speak up.
We have plenty of in house work to do in the meantime. We need to get back to the roots of conservatism and small government. We need to figure out which politicians need to go. Business as usual and the whole pork system must be our target.
[Link fixed – David Blue]
I started writing something and deleted it. Started writing something again, drifted off and lost any semblance of point. I’m still barely part of that ‘young voter’ demographic, and this is the first time I’ve voted for a president that I actually cared about (Gore & Kerry being the first two). I’m still in shock.
Honestly, I wasn’t convinced this day would really happen. Seeing the Wright thing, the Ayers thing, the Zebari thing… I kept re flashing to the swift boat thing; or the Lewinsky affair… these are the moments where we have somehow elected a politician who will be seen only by his flaws, and not by his message. There have been a lot of days where I thought I might give up on politics altogether. And then they passed with little fanfare, which I also found unsettling.
Even last night, as the first votes trickled in, the reader said 150,000 votes McCain, 128,000 Obama; and my gut seized up. _What if everything we thought we knew is wrong?_ It was a ridiculous thought with 0.2% reporting, but I couldn’t help it. I’ve never been politically involved where I wasn’t losing to the republican majority.
But now what happens? I am unsure. I think no president-elect can predict what will happen. Look at Bush in 2000, and how dramatically his understanding of the presidency changed after 9/11. And this crisis, still so very sudden, will dramatically change Obama’s idea of presidency from his campaign began 2 years ago. Obama’s response to crisis will shape and define his presidency in ways that are unpredictable.
In the meantime I hope Republicans rebuild their party. We need a strong minority party to keep us in check. And being in the majority, I now have to watch my party more closely and push them to do better than their basist impulses. That too will be new to me.
Sorry for the bad link. NM is ready to take a fire hose to me i fear.
#10 from Glen Wishard at 12:21 pm on Nov 05, 2008
_The real achievement belongs to my beloved and maligned country._
This following line, that comes from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, has always stayed with me since I first read it nearly 50 years ago.
*Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.*
It was Lincoln’s choice of the verb, to astound, that jumped out at me. This is what America does. It astounds. It astounded the world last night, something the world expects and needs from the United States, to be astounded.
Archemides asked simply
“Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand, and I will move the world.”
-Archimedes, 230 BC
I doubt that their is any sane person on earth that does not realize, including Barack Obama, that his lever was American Democracy and your “beloved and maligned country” was the place on which he stood.
Whether or not Obama is a good or bad President is in a sense irrelevant. We as a people and our beliefs as a nation achieved something astounding last night, something that no other people or no other system of government could have achieved.
Rejoice and be proud of our accomplishment and be thankful that we still have the capability to astound.
Mark Buehner, Coldtype, NhrT, alchemist, David Blue, others —
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Things to reflect on; I’ll be on the road for a few days and it’ll be an interesting time to talk to strangers.
I was surprised it wasn’t closer as well, but I’m glad that if Obama had to win, he did beyond the margin of doubt.
My fellow citizens elected Obama. My country allowed this moment to happen peacefully and joyfully. Obama will be my President, because citizenship is a package deal.
Congratulations and godspeed, Barack Obama.
I’m honestly not sure how I’m perceived here, left, right, or center. I self-identify as independent because there is too much to agree with on both sides of the aisle, and way too much to disagree with, to pigeonhole myself. (I used to self-identify as moderate or centrist, but generally, when I pick a position, I pick it strongly.)
I did a lot of soul searching over the weekend, and was still flip-flopping on Sunday. In the end, I cast the vote most people reading here would have expected me to cast, for reasons that are still relevant, but no longer debate-worthy.
Nevertheless, on January 20, Barack Obama will be my President. I will not come straight out of the gate, dripping with foam and despair. I will not put a countdown calendar on my desk. I will keep my various misgivings mostly under my hat, at least while the man is getting his legs under him for a few months. In areas where I agree with him (and they are not trivial areas) I will cheer him on. In areas where I disagree (and they are not trivial, either) I will certainly complain… but I will hope to do so in an enlightened, civil, and analytical manner, not the spit and bile-tinged hatred that was thrown against Bush.
I will take, as much as I am able, the long and historical view, from the outset. I will hope that he is in no way tested as severely as Bush was, but when he is tested (and he will certainly be tested on foreign policy) I will remind myself that this is not a reaction to Obama, in particular, but a thing that happens to every American President.
Because that’s who he will be, in a few short months: The President of the United States.
My President.
Good luck, man.
AL: “I am hopeful that that’s the keynote for his Administration.”
I’m not. He has never shown actions that meet the words he used last night. He is a man who wrote at dkos in 2005 … “In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in ‘appeasing’ the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.”
That is not someone who will reach across. He toned done his message to get elected. What you should now expect is a full court press against the 1st and 2nd amendments. War crime “trials” against Bush. Abandoning our soldiers in Iraq. etc. Those are all things he promised to the left.
We will most likely see in the first 100 days:
1) the fairness doctrine will pass (to prevent hate speech a.k.a. neocons)
2) 3 to 4 times increase of federal energy taxes (to save the planet)
3) 33% cut in defense spending
4) “War Crime Trials” for Bush officials
Obama has two years to cement his position of power. And he *will* act on that.
– irrational
Mark B, you just provided the silver lining for me: I didn’t realize Den Beste was still writing until you linked him.
And it’s remarkable how exactly he captured my own feelings, with one exception–he thinks it’s possible Obama won’t run again in 2012. But that’s entirely unlikely, given his record of hardcore ambition thus far. Besides, Obama already warned us that “we may not get there in one term or even two”; he pointedly neglected to mention where that “there” is he’s driving towards, but I doubt he’ll be ready to hand the wheel to someone else in 4 years just because he lost the map.
And in the interest of causing a little controversy in this feel-good thread, I’ll beg leave of TOC to riff off his line:
bq. Rejoice and be proud of our accomplishment and be thankful that we still have the capability to astound.
Cue a line from “Chris Rock”:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206636/ a few years ago:
bq. “‘Yeah, we won, we won, we won.’ What the f*** did we win? Every day I look in the mailbox for my… prize. Nothing.”
(I expect the usual flames as soon as someone remembers what reference that ellipses covers up.)
I would have phrased it as รขโฌลCongressional Republicans should give President Obama the same level of respect and deference that he gave to President Bush when he was campaigning for and a member of the Senate.รขโฌย
What amazes me are two things. The first is what the Americans have done and demonstrated yesterday, namely what the new president of the United States has plainly summarized at the beginning of his victory speech:
_”If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where any things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive … who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.”_
Perhaps never truer words were spoken by a politician.
I am also amazed by the “gracious words,” as Obama himself put it, the defeated candidate pronounced in his concession speech.
I must say that I, as a European and a true friend of the United States of America as well, share with president Obama one more firm belief, that this victory is not so much his victory as that of the American people: รขโฌลI will never forgetรขโฌโhe said tonightรขโฌโwho this victory truly belongs to – it belongs to you.รขโฌย
Good luck, Mr. President, and may God bless your Great Country.
Link for irrational’s quote of Barack Obama on September 30, 2005: (link).
That’s what the man said – and a good deal else. And then he went on to do it all.
Barack Obama is a political genius. The facts so demonstrate. Rather than attacking him, I’m interested in learning from him, and I hope many other conservatives feel the same.
Obama deserved to win, or more accurately, Republicans deserved to lose. While not supporting the Democratic agenda, I readily concede that the Republicans have governed poorly and a correction was in order. Obama had to move to the center to get elected. Whether he actually governs that way will be the real test.
The good news is that it seems likely that the Reps will be able to filibuster. They shouldn’t be reflexively oppositional but should use the filibuster as a tool to keep things from moving too far left. While we the people have given Dems a mandate to govern, I don’t believe we gave them a mandate to govern Sweden.
#7/#9/#28. Interesting. American exceptionalism is now acceptable again to the left and Europeans.
What a difference a day makes. I submit that America is not any more exceptional today than she was on November 3rd. You were just reminded of it.
“#7/#9/#28. Interesting. American exceptionalism is now acceptable again to the left and Europeans”
-SG
It is? Perhaps I don’t know myself as well as I thought then. I could swear that back in August when my main man Dennis P. published this “little ditty”:http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/08/o-bomb-it-on-mountain.html about a future President Obama I thought it was well in accord with my own beliefs.
#32 – Don’t take it up with me. Take it up with those who posted the comments I referenced. If you want to have it out over who’s really of the left and who’s actually a petit-bourgeoisie poseur, I really don’t care. That’s your fight, not mine.
_Feels strange to me to be absent my usual cynicism._
That’s ok dude; I have enough cynicism about Obama for both of us.
SG: “The good news is that it seems likely that the Reps will be able to filibuster.”
I personally think the Dems will remove that ability via rules changes.
– irrational
Quick think about the danBeste article. He says this:
_We even survived 8 years of Clinton, God alone knows how._
If anything tells you that someone labors under quite a large amount of delusion – and thus shouldn’t be listened to – the segment I’ve excerpted there does.
Because the truth is – this country FLOURISHED under Clinton. In every way – standing in the world, GDP, stock markets, job creation – this country flourished.
And the country agreed – Clinton left office with the highest job approval rating, 65%, which is the highest since World War II?
So – if a person is ideologically blinded enough to truly believe the country “survived” Clinton, and can’t even recognize the reality of the situation under Clinton – that person’s judgment can be discarded.
I personally think the Dems will remove [the filibuster] via rules changes.
I agree that they can but I think that they won’t, at least not immediately. That’s part of the reason why I would counsel Senate Reps to not be reflexively oppositional. Don’t simply block everything, but try to move things to the center. I think a judicious use of the filibuster in the service of principled centrist/right amendments to Democratic bills (as opposed to trying to block them outright) will both preserve the filibuster and build Republican credibility for future elections. That credibility is sorely lacking now.
But I’m neither a Republican nor a political analyst. I’m just somebody who’s pretty disgusted with both parties.
bq. Because the truth is – this country FLOURISHED under Clinton. In every way – standing in the world, GDP, stock markets, job creation – this country flourished.
*sighs*
I thought we were done with the Myth of Saint Bill after his wife lost the nomination fight.
How many times do we have to point out that the 2000 recession happened _on Clinton’s watch_, and started in Q4 2000 before Bush ever took office? Or remind people about the weakened military he left behind? Or how our “standing” in the world was harmed by our weak response to the _first_ WTC bombing, and by his Administration’s catering to Arafat, and sparking of the intifadah? Or did you forget that the asset bubble which exploded over the last 4 years started in the late 90’s under Clinton, egged on by his 1995 regulatory changes and fueled by his Administration’s monetary policies?
Giving Clinton credit for all the warm and fuzzies you pined for in the last 8 years– without acknowledging all the harm it caused–is kind of like only remembering the smashing party last weekend where you got roaring drunk, while ignoring the following 2 days of hangover and vomiting.
Yeah, he left office with high approval rating. Drunken frat boys are popular too. It strikes me as a poor metric for rating a Presidency.
If they do it at the beginning of the Senate session or try to enact the รขโฌลByrd optionรขโฌย later on they will need at least 51 votes (50 Senators plus Biden) to enact it. Right now theyรขโฌโขre looking at a majority of 56-44 which means that they would need to keep at least one of the seven Democratic members of the Gang of Fourteen on board for that sort of rule change.
“So – if a person is ideologically blinded enough to truly believe…and can’t even recognize the reality of the situation under Clinton – that person’s judgment can be discarded.”
Indeed.
bq. Right now theyรขโฌโขre looking at a majority of 56-44 which means that they would need to keep at least one of the seven Democratic members of the Gang of Fourteen on board for that sort of rule change.
Is the Gang of Fourteen pact still valid, since Bush isn’t nominating any more judges next session? I thought it was only for a specific set of judges which the Dems were threatening filibusters.
(Incidentally McCain’s spearheading of that fiasco is a key reason why I refused to vote for him yesterday.)
One can overestimate how well the country did under Clinton. Certainly there was an extended period of growth. There was also, er, a boom that busted right as he left office – not because of government policy, but because the fundamental misapprehensions of investors clarified at that time (i.e. that there was no Next Microsoft and that monopoly control over Internet commerce was not available to the first mover in a sector). If you give credit for the boom to Clinton, surely he must shoulder a little of the blame for the bust as well!
That said, there are many, many things he could have done to make the situation worse, and by and large he did not do those things. His failings were moral, and some of the shine of the bully pulpit was worn off by the actions he took in office; certainly there are moral positions upon which Clinton is unfit to address even an ordinary American.
There are things which he could have done better, to prepare the country for some of the challenges of the 21st century. But that’s not a huge failing. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a president that we could praise as having excellent foresight. Certainly it’s not a trait possessed by Congress.
I hope that Obama carefully studies ’92-’94. The Clinton majority made several mistakes, overreached on issues they couldn’t build the consensus for, and lost control of Congress for many years. With luck, his Congress will have less ambitious goals, keep their damn hands off our damn guns, and do better. Or, with other luck, they’ll overreach and a new Gingrich will come in with a cleansed and re-invigorated Republican party.
“How many times do we have to point out that the 2000 recession happened on Clinton’s watch, and started in Q4 2000 before Bush ever took office? ”
This is one myth that will soon dissipate once and for all, for sure. The next 4 years will be economically tough, no matter what.
To Clinton’s credit, at least he did not obstruct the economy in ways Obama is likely to.
One other important datapoint is that Congress has more sway over the economy than the President. Also note that a GOP congress (1994-2006) has corelated with a better economy than a Dem congress (1990-94, 2006-2010+).
“standing in the world”
Really? That’s a new one. It appears that Al-Qaeda decided to form only from Feb. 1, 2001 (despite the many AQ attacks before then).
Truly, that is a much weirder claim than the economic one.
Unbeliever,
You disagree with me, without refuting one fact that I mention.
And actually, my larger point – that the U.S. “barely survived Clinton” is a very silly, fantastical view, is actually propped up by your comment.
The “negatives” that you mention – some of which are debatable – are pretty small change, really. Certainly not in the “barely survivable” column.
No – history has proven you wrong – you won’t get to rewrite it. Bill Clinton’s 8 years were a golden age economically and from a foreign policy standpoint, in terms of influence and protecting U.S. interests, AND her troops – especially so when compared to Bush’s 8 years.
And your comment only proves it – you really are only kvetching, criticizing, at the edges of Bill Cliton’s accomplishments.
#16, From your keyboard to God’s ears!
On the main topic, I am too busy to comment until tonight at the earliest. Today started a little slowly, as I drank up all of my champagne in preparation for the imposition of Sharia Law.
As far as I can tell from a quick Google, the start date of the recession that included 2001 is still in some dispute. The the NBER change its mind subsequent to the aforecited article, or is GK and company just relying on the Bush/Larry Kudlow version?
bq. You disagree with me, without refuting one fact that I mention.
I responded to your idolizing myth with references to fleshed-out arguments you (and the rest of us) have already heard many times before. I’m disinclined to shoulder the blame for your failure to accept logical refutation.
bq. The “negatives” that you mention – some of which are debatable – are pretty small change, really. Certainly not in the “barely survivable” column.
The 2000 recession, the mortgage crisis (fueled by the late 90’s asset bubble), the 9/11 attacks following a period of seeming weak, are all “small change”? Wow. Makes me wonder what you consider a _big_ problem to be, or how you ever managed to find a problem with Bush.
Den Beste’s “don’t know how we survived” was straight hyperbole, but your unthinking adulation for partisan points is just as silly.
bq. And your comment only proves it – you really are only kvetching, criticizing, at the edges of Bill Cliton’s accomplishments.
For the Nth time, Clinton has only 3 actual _accomplishments_ to his name.
(1) Signing NAFTA
(2) Welfare reform
(3) Giving the nation a preview of Hillary Clinton
Avatar gets it right: Clinton’s best quality in office was that he could have screwed things up very badly by interring, but he didn’t. I’m sincere when I say I appreciate him for that–it takes a certain kind of politician to let the world carry on without needing to tweak things just to put his stamp on it.
And to get back on topic (or at least genuflect in its general direction), _this is a crucial Clinton-esque quality I do *not* believe Obama posesses_.
So drop the Clinton myth already. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
AJL: _Today started a little slowly, as I drank up all of my champagne in preparation for the imposition of Sharia Law._
You better hurry up and spend all of your money before the Great Redistribulation too!
You blame Clinton for things that happen on BUSH’s watch??
Wow.
Listen, believe what you want to believe. Reality says differently.
You actually list only those 3 accomplishments?
Not the job growth?
Not the stock market growth?
Not the reduction in crime?
Not the economic improvements for the working class?
As far as I’m concerned, YOU are simply wedded to an ideological denial. That’s fine – but I would suggest that you don’t know what you are talking about, and if you ignore REALITY (even though reality has a well-known liberal bias), others should not pay attention to your arguments.
Everyone knows the effects of a president’s policies end the second his successor is sworn in. Everyone remember that in January.
Greg Sheridan, speaking from an Australian point of view gives a fond farewell to President George W. Bush, the best friend Australia ever had in the White House, and a very cautious welcome to President-elect Obama, who we can be pretty sure won’t be particularly friendly to us or our interests. (link)
_Don’t take it up with me. Take it up with those who posted the comments I referenced. If you want to have it out over who’s really of the left and who’s actually a petit-bourgeoisie poseur, I really don’t care. That’s your fight, not mine_
-SG
Forgive me SG but unless I’ve misread your comment it was _you_ who inferred that Europe and the “left” has now embraced America’s exceptionalism, then you concluded by agreeing with this assessment. Did I miss something?
_Because the truth is – this country FLOURISHED under Clinton. In every way – standing in the world, GDP, stock markets, job creation – this country flourished_
-hypocrisyrules
Flourished, right. By overseeing the dismantling of America’s manufacturing base and the corporate gang-rape of its unions, culminating with the passage of NAFTA which further decimated American labor and annihilated the Mexican economy. The Clinton administration that oversaw the repeal of Glass-Steagall and unleashed the Wall Street hellhounds, yet introduced welfare “reform” which undermined a key pillar of the New Deal is nothing to celebrate. Under Clinton real wages continued to stagnant and decline as they have to this day since 1973-74 while productivity and corporate profits skyrocketed without a concomitant trickle-down to workers–whose benefits were further slashed. Yeah, what a legacy.
Mark,
Clearly, it isn’t like Clinton deserved NO blame- it’s not that black and white. But come on – that isn’t what Unbeliever was saying. He’s taking a small subset of data, blowing it up, and having that data represent the entire – and important – Clinton era, and ignoring counter-evidence.
So yes, sure, in regards to the mortgage crisis – or rather the derivatives crisis, because that is the real problem – Rubin and Paulson, with Clinton’s assent (and the assent of most of Washington) initiated a new form of “financial transactions” – and for that Clinton bears some responsibility. But the acceleration of this – and then the negligence when problems started appearing – is pure Bush responsibility.
Or, regarding – recession – sure, both some of the boom, and then the bust, took place outside of Clinton’s hands. But he did what he could to improve job capture, and raise the median rates of ALL americans.
And certainly his economic performance was – in actuality – simply better than any Republicans performance.
But is that what unbeliever is arguing? No – he’s arguing to shift ALL the blame on Clinton, not recognize him for the clear-minded steward of the economy he was – faults and all.
It’s pure fantasy, and basically, no one is going to pay attention to people who make such fantastical arguments that ignore clear facts.
Well, here we are. We did it. We handed the keys to the car to the lowest rated Congress in history. Do you really believe that The One will will stand up to Reid and Pelosi? He never has before. And it is silly to believe that He is going to start now.
There is an old adage in sports that when things get tough, you fall back onto your training. Obama was trained in deep socialistic dogma. When push comes to shove, His inability to accept any criticism will cause him to fall back into His redistributionist background. We just handed the ball to a rookie quarterback with no experience. Seriously, how could that turn out badly??
We have handed the keys to our country to a man who we know nothing about. The press have made sure of that. None of us know what He will do going forward since He has never done anything about anything in his past. Maybe we will be surprised and He will govern from the center. Who knows. Maybe He will tell us what He has planned in his first press conference in over two months.
Me personally? I am preparing for the inevitable. The market is already down 300 points. As more is discovered about the true agenda He has planned, the markets will tank even further. But never fear, the top 5% of earners will take care of us all. I am moving all my money into cash and then into inflation-resistant stocks.
PS. Maybe we can now find out what in the hell He was doing for those two years at Columbia.
“The the NBER change its mind subsequent to the aforecited article, or is GK and company just relying on the Bush/Larry Kudlow version?”
So the first 40 days of Bush’s Presidency caused the recession? Precisely what did he enact in that interval?
There is a thing called the stock market that moves as a leading indicator. It had already fallen sharply by the time Clinton left office.
By your logic, everything that will happen in the first several weeks of Obama’s regime will be Obama’s fault. Are you willing to sign up for that? (I didn’t think so).
And I’m the one saying ‘to Clinton’s credit’ with none of the ‘we survived 8 years of Clinton’ extremist nonsense. Sheesh. Then again, when has Lazarus ever been a thinking person?
People, get a grip. The quality of this thread is rapidly falling.
In economic terms, AND in national security terms, it takes 12 months or more for a new President to have much effect. Thus, they bear the brunt of their predecessor’s residue.
So yes, the 2001 recession/dot-com bust is on Clinton, as is 9/11, and the condition of Afghanistan and Iraq under Saddam circa 2001.
Similarly, the current recession is on Bush, as is any foreign disaster that happens in 2009 (like Iran getting nukes, or the collapse of Pakistan) is on Bush’s legacy.
This is a fair, non-partisan assessment. Apply the same rules equally if you want to call yourselves actual thinkers.
True historians state that it takes 10 years post-departure for an accurate assessment of a President to be made. So one should not fully judge Clinton until 2011, and GWB until 2019.
I predict that both will ultimately be ranked as ‘median’ Presidents, ranking in the low 20s out of 43 ex-Presidents to date (both better than Carter, Ford, or GHWB, but both worse than Reagan or JFK). What is for sure is that neither will be judged much better than the other.
hypocrisyrules, you may want to check in with Coldtype. He also seems to disagree with your dreamy view of the Clinton years.
bq. that isn’t what Unbeliever was saying. He’s taking a small subset of data, blowing it up, and having that data represent the entire – and important – Clinton era, and ignoring counter-evidence.
I’m saying that Clintonian policies did not cease having an effect on our economy in January of 2001–that they actually had (and continue to have) an effect years after he retreated to Harlem to sulk. Just like Bush’s policies will affect things for years to come, just like Bush I’s policies… hell, just like Reagan’s policies and FDR’s programs continue to have an overwhelming impact on our nation to this day. It’s strange _not_ to think this is the case, and it’s downright ludicrous for you to deny it happened in one 8-year period just because you like the (D) after the guy’s name.
Again: fondly remembering the binge while conveniently ignoring the hangover is a Bad Idea outside college dorms.
bq. But is that what unbeliever is arguing? No – he’s arguing to shift ALL the blame on Clinton
All I was shooting for was _some_ of the blame, because your rose-colored glasses clearly came with a thick set of blinders as well. I’ve plenty of bones to pick with Bush as well.
(Though if we take AJL’s article seriously, maybe we don’t get to harp on Bush for a recession any more; hasn’t happened on his watch just yet! (Gosh, maybe McCain was _right_ that the _fundamentals_ of our economy are strong, even if it currently _feels_ seem not-so-great. More narrative shredding!))
bq. not recognize him for the clear-minded steward of the economy he was – faults and all.
The idea that the President is some benign, watchful crafter and father over the economy is a dangerous notion. And it’s demonstrably _false_ in Clinton’s case, because (as previously noted) the best thing he did was to neglect it. By these standards, I’m a “clear-minded steward” over my driveway because I have yet to take a jackhammer and rip it apart; low standards for earning high praise… perhaps necessary narrative preparation for the next 4 years?
GK, I agree with you about the quality of this thread degrading. But, it does need some correction.
9-11 is NOT, I repeat NOT on Clinton.
I take your point, regarding the economy – fair point there.
But BUSH is the one who told Richard Clark, when he came into the office warning about attacks, “you’ve covered your ass”, and then preceded to do nothing.
The BUSH administration is the administration who was maneuvering to send money to the Taliban, spring of 2001.
The BUSH administration is the one who, when receiving the memo about future terrorist airplane attacks, didn’t do anything.
I view the main years of the Bush administration, basically, as a combination of arrogant and negligent, in regards to their responsibility to the nation.
So, regarding 9-11 – Bush is like a lazy security guard, sleeping at his post, when the bombers came in to blow up the place. He was ASLEEP, so he didn’t see that the bad guys were on the video cameras – for a couple of minutes.
Maybe he if he responded with the full strength of the government to Clark’s warning, and the memo – something could have been done.
Same thing with horrible aspects of the Bush administration.
Enron – while not caused by Bush, made worse the situation, by resisting early efforts to deal with the situation, regulate, and punish the bad guys.
Iraq – lazily underestimated the effects of invading Iraq – poor future projections, and ghastly post-war planning.
Katrina – again, a policy of arrogance and negligence. The warnings were there – but the horrible post Katrina response, is on Bush.
Mortgage/financial crisis – while not instituted by Bush, again, his main people chose to ignore the warning signs.
I would think that conservatives would be madder at Bush, than even I am.
His arrogance and negligence have stained conversatism, and Republicanism, most likely far beyond the validity/non-validity of those ideas and principles.
For the record, this isn’t the kind of discussion I want for the next 8 years. Can we leave some of these things behind, and focus on the problems ahead?
President-elect Barack Obama won either because or in spite of the color of his skin. His presidency will be judged for the content of his character.
hypocrisy,
You missed the whole point of my #56, and devolved into partisan BDS after a mature first couple of sentences.
Under Clinton, we had the 1993 WTC bombing (which was a failed attempt at what eventually succeeded on 9/11/01). We also had the Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings, 1996 Khobar Tower bombings, and USS Cole. Osama had already declared war on America years before Bush.
Furthermore, 9/11/01 was in the works since 1996.
So yes, Clinton is on the hook for 9/11/01. Had it happened in, say, 2003, Bush would be at fault, but given that it was in for works for 5 years, the first 7.5 months of GWB are not to blame.
Just like Bush is on the hook if Iran or Pakistan have the problems I mention, in 2009. But if they happen in 2010 or 2011, Obama is on the hook, having been in office long enough to do something.
That is the whole point.
Your subsequent rantings about Katrina, Iraq, etc. are unintelligent BDS lunacy. because we are talking about the first 12 months of a new President bearing the brunt of his predecessor’s actions.
My fair, non-partisan post #56 stands without amendment.
Well, no point to go into this too much.
I grant you the structural factors that led to 9/11. I would say that no one in Washington actually took Al-Queda that seriously, and Clinton did better than most (remember all the wag the dog stuff about trying to bomb Bin Laden?) but if you place responsibility on the PRESIDENT alone, then sure, he is as culpable as anyone.
Call it BDS if you want – and I grant you, that Bush inheritied the structural situation.
But I point to three clear instances where the Bush administration, starting with loaning money to the Taliban, also did not take the situation seriously with Al-Queda. And you don’t deny those three (which you can’t, because those are factual).
But the BDS – I believe – is simply a recognition of a clear, and historical pattern – of how Bush and company dealt with challenges. And that was in an ideologically arrogant, and negligent manner. Extremely so, which led to horrible crisis management.
There is an historical anecdote that after Roosevelt defeated Hoover, another financial crisis hit. The Hoover people called the Roosevelt people to let them know what was happening, and see if they could coordinate a united response that would be effective across administrations. The Roosevelt people essentially said don’t call us; everything before inauguration day is your problem.
Albeit this is Hoover’s side of the story, I’ve never read anything more depressing about Roosevelt.
#59 from Alchemist:
bq. _”For the record, this isn’t the kind of discussion I want for the next 8 years. Can we leave some of these things behind, and focus on the problems ahead?”_
Apparently not.
I also don’t think this will be only a bottom up issue. Barack Obama likes to get cute, and he’s very good at it. Three examples: sort of giving the finger to Hillary without being quite accountable for it when he figured he had her beat, doing the same thing with John McCain, and the story of the stinky old fish and the pig with lipstick. This is a guy who has a genius for getting away with it, and loves to do so. He likes to trash-mouth and fling ’em the middle finger, in public, and not get called on it (or not with any effect). Hey, he can wear the suit, play the part, be The Man, exercise power over the system, but inside he’s authentic, and he cares about that.
Just that sense that he’s getting away with stuff is going to nettle a lot of Republicans.
Plus, his politics is “the Chicago way” taken to an unprecedented level. Every election he’s gotten into, he’s gotten as cute with as possible – opposing candidates invalidated on technicalities, divorce records being unsealed for no plausible reason, ACORN, rivers of illegal funds pouring through a hole in his online security wall that was opened for just such a purpose, and so on.
Plus his key positions, the ones he does lead on (and there aren’t too many of those – positions where he won’t reverse himself if it suits him) are inherently “hot”, like the Freedom of Choice Act.
He’s going to get people’s goats. And that’s going to benefit him because then they’ll be stupid. They’ll make the angry remarks and slips that through the miracle of media distortion and false equivalence will take crimes of epic proportions off the table. The sweetest bit will be when people slip over a sense that he’s getting away with something and they can’t nail it chapter and verse, because that will make it easy for him, or his surrogates, to call “racist!” (which they will do anyway) with extra effect.
He’s good. He’s really, really good. People talk about Bill Clinton as a political super-talent, and he is all of that. He proved it. But I think Barack Obama is beyond him.
For Republicans, this will be a blow upon a bruise, because George W. Bush has also been happy to smear Republicans when it suited him; as sexist (for not supporting Harriet Miers), as bigoted (for opposing the secret-till-it-wasn’t Dubai Ports deal, as “people who don’t want to do the right thing for America” for opposing illegal immigration and McCain-Kennedy. And of course John McCain has made a career of trashing Republicans too. Nothing Barack Obama says or does will be far out of line with precedents set by Republican leaders.
That’s gotta hurt. And dummies will bite at the bait and hook.
I don’t think there’s much that calmer and more sensible Republicans can do to help that. (Getting knee-tingling Obama crushes and trashing more staunchly partisan Republicans, as many big media pundits are already doing, does not count as “helping” in this context.)
If this election proved anything it is the country is going through a major generational change and an ever growing majority of people will rapidly not give a flying freak about Clinton or Bush as time goes on.
The country is focused on the future. Both Clinton are the past two sides of the same coin of a forgotten age. My gut feeling is that everyone, right and left will be surprised by Obama.
Comparatively, he enters office not owing anyone, not Wall Street, not lobbyists, not the democratic party,not anyone anything. I cannot think of any other President who has come to office in this position.
I believe that the Democrats will become the Obamacrats, a party shaped in Obama’s image, which we will have to see when it is created. We have not seen the like of Obama since Reagan.
My feeling is that a frontal assault on Obama by the weakened Republicans will be suicidal. He has a very strong mandate and it is *his mandate,* not that of his party’s. He is extremely charismatic, attracts extraordinary People, Volker and Buffet are that come to mind.
Without a philosophy, that will take time to fashion, Obama will destroy any Republican rebellion in an instant. We have no credibility with the electorate and it will take at least until the mid term elections to regain enough strength to challenge him, barring disasterous mistakes on his part, which I wouldn’t count on.
This is a formidable opponent. As good a politician as I have ever seen and now he has the power of the Presidency to back it up.
Me, I am intrigued to see what happens. Fascinated by the facility this man shows on the political stage.
He is an exceptional American. He is my President-elect and, the way I was raised he deserves our support until he proves he is unworthy of it as President.
Another cheer, this my simplest and most heartfelt: to the “Yes we can!” crowd, specifically including the celebrities, who often have to take snarky shots from conservatives.
Not this time, not from me. Their participation was a pure expression of how democracy is supposed to be. They believed in the values of democracy and in the process, and in the candidate they were cheering on. They were positive, in a political culture that’s too often negative. They volunteered their efforts or their famous faces and talent. The best of them played nice, like Tom Hanks graciously, modestly and without the least trace of sneering or “celebrity attitude” endorsing the man he wanted to be president. Their contribution was beautiful.
And, leaving everything else aside, it’s good that it was rewarded with success. I can’t see anything but good coming from so many people having thrown their heart into the great rite of democracy, in a positive and civic-minded way, and finding it was sweet.
The “Yes we can!” crowd, which extends far beyond celebrities, is also an argument that Barack Obama is better qualified to be the American President than John McCain would have been. Barack Obama has a lot of good people who would lie down in traffic for him. That’s a blessing.
John McCain, on the other hand, had so few loyalists of his own that he entrusted the vital rollout of Sarah Palin to left-over Bush staffers. They did an “EPIC FAIL!” job of it, and some of them have been trashing the candidate. They should all have been fired (yes the guilty and the innocent alike) and replaced with genuine loyalists the moment that started – only it seems the cupboard was bare, even if John McCain had thought to do that. I don’t see how it would have been possible to govern effectively like that.
_Your subsequent rantings about Katrina, Iraq, etc. are unintelligent BDS lunacy_
-GK
_True historians state that it takes 10 years post-departure for an accurate assessment of a President to be made. So one should not fully judge Clinton until 2011, and GWB until 2019_
-GK
You fascinate me. Really.
2019 before at accurate measure of Georgie Boy can be assessed. So let’s see, 16 years (from ’03) to determine that the unilateral, illegal assault on Iraq that decimated a nation posing no threat to our own was a bad idea. The consequences of this decision has lead to the slaughter of over one million Iraqis, four million refugees, the deaths of nearly five thousand G.Is with thousands more maimed for life, all at a cost estimated to run to three trillion dollars.
2019 before the ludicrously inadequate Team Bush response to Katrina can be properly categorized as a colossal failure?
2019 before the administration that embraced deregulation of the financial sector like no other in American history can be properly credited for its overwhelming share of responsibility for the debacle which followed?
These offenses are merely the most notable of a host of others that guarantees Team Bush’s place in infamy and has likely discredited the Republican Party for generations, yet you’re mystified as to how a man who voted with the worst administration in the history of the republic 90% of the time got his ass stomped on election day. Fascinating.
Wow, go work for a day and things go directly to hell.
Simple rule on this thread – STOP THE FRICKING BACKBITING. We will have backbiting threads, and partisan threads, and American Exceptionalism threads where we will debate all these things.
This is not one of those threads.
A.L.
Want me to tidy up, Marc?
Coldtype,
I see no reason to change my post #56. It is a non-partisan post, and that it baffled you validates it further.
I would ask you to rate which US President of the last 100 years you consider to be a GOOD US President, and why, but I’ll save that for another time.
GK, Coldtype – please do…
A.L.
Ok, can do.
The McCain people are trashing poor Miss Wasilla by mentioning that she didn’t know what countries are in NAFTA and she didn’t know that Africa was a continent. (She probably doesn’t know Mr Blue’s country from Mr Schwarzenegger’s.) Is this surprising? Any minute now, the Christian-right contingent will be explaining that even this knowledge my high-schooler knows isn’t really necessary in a president, not if you know Jesus. The lengths that conservative ex-intellectuals will go to, finding a reason to deny what’s right in front of their winked-at eyes.
And McCain made that choice. He’s not the first man to fall for ambition and a pretty face.
Other than that, alchemist 19 speaks for me.
AJL: STOP ALREADY. See #68. Verb. sap.
More people in the thread should just cheer the President-elect and his enthusiastic supporters.
Barack Obama just rewrote the political playbook, and in the process of getting elected against all sorts of precedents (too Left, too junior in qualifications etc.) he a) overcame the massively favored (“inevitable”) establishment candidate of his own party, b) overcame the Republican candidate considered to be the only one who had a real shot at beating him (and this after McCain himself pulled off some amazing feats, including the selection of Sarah Palin, a political Hail Mary play that worked), and c) gained a massive, tremendous electoral vote win, one that gives him, personally a mandate to govern (that is him, and not anybody who might try to claim that he owes them) and gratified the fondest hopes of his dewy-eyed supporters. I keep saying it because it keeps being true and people keep ignoring it. The guy has given evidence of being a political genius.
The Kos Kids including the mighty Markos Moulitsas himself have put in years of frenetic effort, and really won it all, on their own terms. It used to be that RedState mocked Markos Moulitsas and the Daily Kos, because all the candidates that they endorsed and raised money for lost, but who’s laughing now? Like them or not, that’s vision, that’s toil, that’s political courage, that’s persistence year after year after year, and that’s reward, big time. For that: respect’!
John Murtha (D-PA) has proved he was right. Like him or not, he proved that he is what his constituents wanted. I have to accept the validity of his methods because the people ratified them with a thumping victory. And I accept that what the Republican Party needs to do now is learn to deliver the goods for client groups of its own. That’s the way it works. John Murtha won, give it up for the people’s choice.
The “Yes we can!” crowd are the best of all. I see a lot of light and shadow in politics, but here I see light and more light. Well done Tom Hanks, and well done everyone else who played the game idealistically and clean. Democracy is about you guys. (PROLONGED APPLAUSE!)
Oh, and to the Mainstream Media: you won. The fix was in, and it worked. You won, we lost, but next time watch out for the Bad News Bears! (AKA the young Republicans.)
#75 Mr Blue: And all this commentary by you, in your honest opinion, impinges not a whit on the comments by Armed Liberal in #68? I understand your sentiments. But is this the thread for them? Respectfully yours, NM
#76 from Nortius Maximus:
bq. _”#75 Mr Blue: And all this commentary by you, in your honest opinion, impinges not a whit on the comments by Armed Liberal in #68? I understand your sentiments. But is this the thread for them? Respectfully yours, NM”_
I’ll stop.
That said: I didn’t think my comments were off topic, given that they were about the victorious Barack Obama and his allies in this election.
Instead, rehashing the Bush years from 2000 on struck me as off topic.
My only comment since Armed Liberal’s #68 is #75. His request was: stop the back-biting. I don’t feel that my comments were about backbiting. In any case, the only comment by me that could reasonably tested for its compliance with the Armed Liberal’s demand as articulated in #68 was mine in #75, and I think that if that’s what you call “backbiting”…
[Edited – calmer.]
If that’s what you call “backbiting” I disagree. And yes, since you politely ask, this is my honest opinion.
And yes, that means my comment “impinges not a whit on the comments by Armed Liberal in #68”.
I also doubt whether you do understand my sentiments, since you cast doubt on whether I complied with Armed Liberal’s demand in #68.
Respectfully yours, David Blue.
“In economic terms, AND in national security terms, it takes 12 months or more for a new President to have much effect. Thus, they bear the brunt of their predecessor’s residue.”
Not necessarily. I have heard more than once that the market starts moving well before even the election to take into account the policies of the possible winner.
National Security is the same. A candidates policies give the rabags and our friends in the world a window into how a candidate will govern, and they will act acordingly.
I cannot understand how, when we have just demonstrated the strength of our political system and the correctness on our deepest moral beliefs, there are still some people who cannot step back and congratulate ourselves and marvel at the wisdom of our founders.
Get it through your head, this is not about an election or the Republican or Democratic party, or being liberal or conservative. It is about our system and our beliefs.
Do yourselves a favor and take a couple of days to reflect on them. Take them to heart and show some humility for having been fortunate enough to come under the benevolent influence of this system and these beliefs.
There will always be plenty of time for argument. There is always very little for reflection. Now is a time for reflection. Take advantage of it.
TOC, I don’t disagree with you at all. I, too, felt a thrill of pride standing in line with some I knew were going to vote for Obama and no one even arguing strenuously much less shooting at each other. And I certainly recognize what a rare and precious thing that is in this vail of tears. However, it’s difficult to be as sanguine as you are right now for those of us who:
1) Have livelihoods, like military contracting, that are likely to be threatened by Obama’s policies and
2) Are old enough to remember the social, economic, military, and cultural catastrophes that resulted the last time people this liberal had this much unfettered power (1964-1980). Much of that damage has yet to be undone, and now we’ll get a helluva lot more of it.
#80 from Fred at 5:38 pm on Nov 06, 2008
TOC, I don’t disagree with you at all. I, too, felt a thrill of pride standing in line with some I knew were going to vote for Obama and no one even arguing strenuously much less shooting at each other. And I certainly recognize what a rare and precious thing that is in this vail of tears. However, it’s difficult to be as sanguine as you are right now for those of us who:
1) Have livelihoods, like military contracting, that are likely to be threatened by Obama’s policies and
2) Are old enough to remember the social, economic, military, and cultural catastrophes that resulted the last time people this liberal had this much unfettered power (1964-1980). Much of that damage has yet to be undone, and now we’ll get a helluva lot more of it.
_We are probably the same age. Hence, we have probably gone through both good times and bad. But the world has changed. Neither you nor I, nor anyone else knows whether it will be for better or for worse. We will just have to see. Just as we will have to see where Obama’s stewardship will lead us. I am willing to give him some time and the benefit of the doubt._
_I do not think that Obama’s tenure will benefit me either, and I might be in the grips of Therapeutic Denial but we shall see._
_That being said, I cannot help but be proud of my country for living up to its ideals, that all Men are created equal and as corny as it sounds, that every child has the opportunity to grow up to be President._
_The last time I was this proud of our form of Government was when the most Powerful Man on the Planet was forced to resign without so much as one soldier leaving his barracks. Something that a European marvelled at as I watched Nixon’s resignation speech with him nearly 35 years ago._
TOC, Now, รยง’mon. That’s hardly fair to Europeans, whose leaders resign all the time without the involvement of soldiers. I know this is a proud moment for us, but let’s not get carried away. We are not the only functioning democracy on the planet.
_We are probably the same age. Hence, we have probably gone through both good times and bad. But the world has changed. Neither you nor I, nor anyone else knows whether it will be for better or for worse. We will just have to see. Just as we will have to see where Obama’s stewardship will lead us. I am willing to give him some time and the benefit of the doubt._
The world may have changed; human nature never does. The neglect of the military and naivete about our adversaries’ intentions that produced the Iranian hostage crisis and all its reverberations from Beirut to 9/11 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan will once again invite attack. Humans are a predator species. We have been for hundreds of thousands of years, and we will continue to be. And like all predators, humans attack when they sense weakness. Man, as Jonathan Swift put it, is _non animal rationalis sed animal capax rationalis_.
Businesses may be more productive and efficient than they were thirty years ago because of technology, but human motivation remains the same. Confiscatory taxes and strangulating regulations will discourage business start-up and expansion now just as much as it did in 1980. Humans are still aquisitive creatures and always will be. Redistribution of wealth will have the same disincentive effects on both the wealthy (to produce wealth) and the poor (to work for it) as it did in 1965-1980.
Without the internal restraints of morality (which liberal attitudes equate with repression, oppression, and boring “old-fogeyness” and denigrate in favor of vapory concepts like “authenticity” or “autonomy”) and the external constraints of the law (which liberal legislation and court decisions undermine in the name of “personal liberty,” as though personal liberty can exist without social order), humans are just as likely today to indulge their sickest desires and feel entitled to take whatever they want as they were in the 1970s, when we had the highest crime rates, if not in our history, then certainly in the 20th century. Not to mention the happy results of the sexual revolution (from which we still suffer)brought about by the above mentioned attitudes and court decisions, particularly Roe v Wade. Sex is no less powerful a psychological and physiological force now than it was in 1964, and removing all constraints on it will have no happier results now than it did the last time.
Who knows? Maybe you and Armed Liberal are right. Maybe Obama has had a “come to the center” moment and will govern as a pragmatic centrist. One can only pray. But if the past is prologue, as it usually is, I very highly doubt it. Everything in Obama’s background and record (such as it is) indicates a conventional left liberal, if anything, one to the left even of Lyndon Johnson.
So you’ll have to forgive me for having serious doubts about the future of my country, great as it is.
Fred,
I’m very curious how you reconcile the deeply felt feelings you expressed about all the evils and ills that beset our country with your final pronouncement: _my country, great as it is._ I mean, it sounds as if you absolutely _hate_ this place. (It also sounds as if you absolutely hate human nature.) Believe me, I’m not trying to be glib here, I would really be curious about what you find so great about the US right now given your strong distaste for our society.
If Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama have such horrible values, how can the country that brought them to power be considered a great one?
Fred, I think one of the early tests is what Obama does about Lieberman. IIRC Obama supported Lieberman against Lamont and then declined to campaign for Lamont.
Obama could play by Chicago rules and see that Lieberman is punished for supporting McCain. He could reach out a hand to Lieberman and help him. Or Obama could pretend like its none of his business.
It’s not that mysterious mark. The evils besetting our society are real enough, and may eventually overwhelm us. But for now anyway, we are still a country that has elections rather than civil wars, a country that despite its past mistakes and sins is still more a force for good than evil in the world. We still have some of the qualities left that saved the world from Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, though they are rapidly disappearing. I don’t believe Johnson, Carter, or Obama were or are evil men (Nixon certainly had a malignant streak though), just misguided men with faulty views of how the world works. Their policies were well, maybe even nobly, intentioned, but you know what they say about good intentions. I would say the same about the electorates that brought them to power.
If I hated our society, its disintegration wouldn’t affect me as profoundly as it does. And I don’t know whether it makes me more sad or angry to see that disintegration hastened by misguided policies and attitudes.
I don’t hate human nature either, any more than any other nature. It is what it is. I don’t hate lions, but I’m not going to try to keep one as a pet, and if one came after me, I wouldn’t attempt to reason with it. If I had the means to kill it, I would. That’s not hatred, just self-preservation. What I do hate, and the source of the anger you sensed in my comment, is my leaders putting myself, my family, and my society at risk because of an illusory, even delusional, view of human nature, i.e. if we make nice, so will everybody else. That’s an extrememly dangerous view whether it’s applied to other countries or to domestic criminals.
PD Shaw,
Interesting point. I’ll be watching that.
_#82 from mark at 6:59 pm on Nov 06, 2008
TOC, Now, รยง’mon. That’s hardly fair to Europeans, whose leaders resign all the time without the involvement of soldiers. I know this is a proud moment for us, but let’s not get carried away. We are not the only functioning democracy on the planet._
I am only repeating what a European said to me. And, this was an American President that was forced to resign, something that had never happened before. It wasn’t your run of the mill European politician. Hell, in the 50s and 60s Christian Democrat Italian PMs resigned every 20 minutes or so.
รยง’mon – brilliant, Mark, Brilliant. I could not let it pass without saying that it did not go unnoticed or unappreciated ๐
#85 from PD Shaw at 8:29 pm on Nov 06, 2008
Banishing Lieberman or voting present on the Senate decision would be a stupid and serious blunder for Obama. He has nothing to lose by welcoming back the Prodigal and enormous amount to gain. Payback doesn’t help a guy who professes to be a uniter.
Fred,
I have to say, Fred, that I find this offensive:
_We still have some of the qualities left that saved the world from Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, though they are rapidly disappearing._
I don’t think they are disappearing at all. Not only that, every time our system is more inclusive and works for people, as it has in this election, these qualities are reinforced. I am and have been a Conservative Republican for a very long time. We may have lost an election, but we have not nor are we in danger of losing our county. Quite the contrary.
*This man, like every President before him, deserves our support, until _HE_ proves himself unworthy of it.*
This is one of the qualities that I was brought up to believe. Men that were underestimated at first have gone extraordinary and surprising things as President. Time will tell.
TOC (#88), I agree, but the “Chicago Way” is for Lieberman to be punished. I am more conflicted about the third option, do nothing.
There is certainly an argument for it. Obama is a back-bencher, not in the leadership. For Obama to push his preferences as President-elect violates a sense of seperation of powers. And I think the Republicans had a problem in failing to create a seperate identity from the Bush administration.
But Obama is a Senator, who should have the same input as any Senator. Any Senator can tell Harry Reid their views. I don’t think Obama can completely hide like he has on any number of issues.
I’ll wait to see how it plays out, but if Lieberman is sent to the wilderness (even though I agree there is reason to do so), I think Armed Liberal’s premise of a pragrmatic new regime takes its first hit.
TOC:
I don’t think I agree with you very often, but this I agree with threefold:
*This man, like every President before him, deserves our support, until HE proves himself unworthy of it.*
An attempt to make a serious contribution to the thread…
I remember, as if it were yesterday, the terrible frustrations of the 2000 and 2004 elections. I hope the disappointed conservatives will understand that the closeness of those elections were even more maddening than the deflation many of you feel today. Better ballot design would not have saved your candidate.
When the Democratic Party failed in those elections, the advice we got was to move to the center, to embrace so-called bipartisan moderates like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. I did not like that advice, so I will not give you the mirror image. Your advice would not have worked out well for us, for we had the true measure of these men.
Holy Joe prattled he was really a Democrat, who through the evil machinations of Daily Kos was deprived of his true ballot line and forced to run as an independent. In this election, however, Joe the Independent Democrat announced that the prospect of a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority would be a scary thing. What exactly is the meaning of being a Democrat, if you want the Democratic Party to lose—not just the Presidency, where one might argue that Senator McCain was a man of exceptional qualifications—but the party as a whole? Nor, I might add, was Lieberman frightened by a filibuster-proof Republican Senate: before 2006 he was a frequent vote for cloture, busting Democratic filibusters and then, futilely, voting no on the merits. As far as I can tell, he remained a nominal Democrat because the Attaboys he got from his friends at Fox News and the center-right Beltway pundits would have, and mostly did, dry up once he showed his true colors.
As for Zell Miller, he gets an opportunity allowed to few: he can re-publish his book A National Party No More using the names of his new friends’, without so much as changing the title! Obama outpolled Kerry all over the country except for most of Appalachia and McCain’s Arizona home.
So I will not tell you to rehabilitate Wayne Gilchrist, the moderate-conservative Representative from MD-01 who turned against the Iraq War. You beat him with an extremist in the primary, and, pending absentee ballots, you appear to have lost his seat. Nor will I suggest that you change your beliefs to recapture liberal Lincoln Chaffee, whose political path mirrored Lieberman’s in reverse, except that whilst still in office he showed a far greater degree of party loyalty.
Even now, the same Republicans who last week said that Obama was the most liberal Senator, a socialist, a Marxist, and in the case of one Republican clown who was re-elected arguably anti-American, are pretending that his victory is not an endorsement of a liberal agenda, much less a Marxist socialist one, that the country is really center-right, and that is how the President must govern.
I would, however, like you to rehabilitate your party. Power corrupts; one-party rule corrupts. I do not wish to claim that liberal ideas are always better. On education, on affirmative action, on welfare reform, and other issues, I personally believe there are significant weaknesses in the classical liberal position. Even where liberal ideals may be worthy, their implementation will be botched without genuine opposition to keep them honest.
So, to start, bring back honesty to your arguments. I don’t know how many conservatives (none of them serious, as opposed to TV-parody, economists) tell us that tax cuts always increase revenue, and point to the Reagan cuts as an example. On another site, I was directed to this chart from the Heritage Foundation allegedly proving the point.
The chart is a fraud and a lie. You can find the underlying data on page 31 of this government document (pdf). As you can see, the Heritage Foundation added together revenues from the Federal Funds (e.g., income tax) where the rates were cut and revenues from the Trust Funds, where taxes went up. That’s cheating. In constant dollars, Federal Funds government revenues did not regain their pre-cut level until 1986 or 1987, depending on choice of inflation measure. The problem is that, as Richard Feynman said under similar circumstances, “Nature can not be fooled.” You can win elections with these ruses, but you can’t grow government revenues. If you want to argue for smaller government, fine. But voodoo economics has had its run, and it’s left us in a mess.
Second, stop relying on provincialism and nativism. I’m not calling for open immigration, but for recognition that having the rest of the world against us is not a sign of our own power. John Kerry mangled his debate line about a global test; I think he was trying to echo Jefferson’s “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. Incoherent, unfocused truculence is not a foreign policy. A comparison of the Clinton and Bush treatment of North Korea suggests that the Bush technique is better if you want to feel tough, the Clinton technique is better if you want results. And American discussion of human rights is so much hypocritical bloviation as long as we are waterboarding.
Meanwhile, the conservative movement as somehow merged with anti-elitism, a phenomenon that is revolutionary in its way, but undesirable. There is, unfortunately, a class in America that seems to believe that if you know Jesus, you don’t have to know much else. It is found in Christopher Hitchens was willing to give Sarah Palin a chance, but after she ridiculed fruit fly research, a dog-whistle call to the Young Earth Creationists, he let loose his vitriol.
To which I will add one last point: get rid of the tinfoil hat nuts. Daily Kos banned 9/11 Truth diaries. After a few too many, he banned 2004 Ohio Stolen Election diaries. The conservatives aren’t doing that. They have 9/11 wackjobs writing their best-seller anti-Obama smear. The National Review, which is part of the Establishment that never speaks of Kos without adding an adjective like “loony left”, allowed its bloggers to suggest that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s memoirs, and that Obama was really born a non-citizen in Kenya. Deal with reality. Deal with the fact that Sarah Palin apparently didn’t know Africa was a continent and couldn’t name the signatories to NAFTA—understanding how intelligent people could deny the obvious about her lack of knowledge is more tragedy than farce, and better explained by psychologists than political scientists.
I wish you well on rediscovering some principle. Under Karl Rove, the entire apparatus of the Republican and conservative movement was literally Orwellian: he wrote
Try to do better for the future, OK?
Well, the whole problem with the “power corrupts” argument against Republicans is that I’m worried that Obama starts out very corrupted, and that the Democratic congress is quite demonstrably corrupted.
And the one proven reformer (we all saw how effective McCain’s campaign finance reforms were) on either ticket is now getting smeared by the people with a vested interest in keeping reformers as far away from Washington as possible.
AJL, do your victory dance. And I congratulate Obama, and wish him well. But don’t expect those of us who haven’t drunk the kool-aid to keep time for you.
Fred@83
Right Said Fred!
And What Mark Said!@93
Some have painted dreadful pictures of what will soon happen in the Obama administration, like:
bq. _What you should now expect is a full court press against the 1st and 2nd amendments. War crime “trials” against Bush. Abandoning our soldiers in Iraq. etc. Those are all things he promised to the left._
bq. _We will most likely see in the first 100 days:
1) the fairness doctrine will pass (to prevent hate speech a.k.a. neocons)
2) 3 to 4 times increase of federal energy taxes (to save the planet)
3) 33% cut in defense spending
4) “War Crime Trials” for Bush officials_ [#25]
Those folks (and the rest of us) should act like good scientists: formulate these as falsifiable predictions, wait until the actual data arrives, and draw appropriate conclusions. That includes being willing to face the implications if those dire predictions turn out to be false. (As the rest of us must face the implications if they end up being true.)
The key is: Make a serious prediction about the _future_, that is clear and definite enough to be shown true or false within a specified time-frame. Then face the facts.
One more point, re Lieberman.
Joe LIeberman says that his conscience required him to campaign for John McCain, and against the Democratic nominee. Well and good. And, if he wishes to rejoin the Democratic party, or continue to identify himself as an Independent but caucus with the Democrats, he should be welcomed in.
But to expect that the Democratic Party will then allow him to keep a major committee chairmanship is totally unreasonable.
To get respect for acts of conscience, one must be willing to accept the consequences of one’s actions. Lieberman’s statement that losing his chairmanship is “unacceptable” undercuts any respect he might have earned for his “act of conscience”.
#96 from Beard at 3:47 am on Nov 08, 2008
I think you have cleared up a lot for me on Lieberman. It really gets down to taking responsibility for his own actions.
I have always thought that he was a little batty. I do not want him in the Republican Party, mainly because he is not a Republican of any stripe that I can recognize.
He appears to behave less and less like a Democrat. I wonder why he just doesn’t embrace his Independence/ It was his choice. I can’t really see how the Democrats would or should hand him a chairmanship. If he was a republican and behaved in the same way towards us, I do not think we would have a choice.
He should have the courage of his convictions and should not be embraced by the Republicans either. Themore he whines, the less sympathy anyone will have for him.
#93 from Mark Poling at 6:10 am on Nov 07, 2008
On the power corrupts issue. Leaving the democrats out of the picture entirely for a moment, I think the party has to take a good look at itself after being in power for 20 of the last 28 years.
We are no longer the party that we were in the 80’s. We have been corrupted in the sense that we have run out of ideas, became too arrogant and more so became alienated from the voters.
I don’t think that we will recover as a party unless we admit our mistakes to ourselves and jettison some really horrible ideas that have infiltrated the party. My bugaboos are Rovian Politics and NeoCon Foreign Policy.
I don’t think we get anywhere without jettisoning them. I also think that they are the two main examples of influences that have corrupted Party philosophy. Not only were they wrong headed, they were extremely destructive, bringing us to where we are now.
In reply to Fred #86:
With your third paragraph, I agree. “I don’t hate lions but wouldn’t try to keep one as a pet, and if one came after me I’d kill it if I could” (to paraphrase slightly).
Heinlein said something similar, in Starship Troopers. Something like “Whether I hate a rabid dog is irrelevant, and whether I feel sorry for it is also irrelevant. It cannot be changed or reasoned with and is a mortal threat, so KILL IT!” I am quite sure that is severely paraphrased, but I think the sense is right.
A lot of people in the world at least attempt to rise above our biological imperatives, and therefore attempt to embrace difference and to help those the helping of whom cannot benefit us. Examples include the multinational rescue operation after the Asian tsunami. But others don’t even make the attempt; in fact they embrace their difference and violently resist any attempts to integrate. Those are the rabid dogs in our world; and after 1300 years of trying, I think it is safe to conclude that they cannot be changed. What, therefore, is left?
To put this more plainly, a Westerner might with no lack of logic feel sorry for individual Moslems and at the same time feel that their ideology is a mortal threat to our freedoms (and lives, to some extent) and must now be crushed, extirpated and utterly destroyed, to the same extent that the culture of Carthage was and for the same reasons. And whether or not that involves killing the great majority of its adherents.
Some US president, maybe this latest one, is going to have to face up to that sooner or later. That’s the real issue for the teens of the 21st Century, and maybe for the last couple of years of the Noughties.
Quoth Beard:
bq. The key is: Make a serious prediction about the future, that is clear and definite enough to be shown true or false within a specified time-frame. Then face the facts.
Well, the text you quoted does that; there are four separate items, thus four separate predictions. And you probably don’t think they’re serious, from your tone. Whose responsibility it that — meeting your standard for seriousness? ๐
You might be falling into the fallacy that every day will be like the day before. The President-elect and his Congress have years to try to get things done. If I were to set all my predictions in the four-to-eight-year timeframe, would that be cricket? Or would you think I was gaming your criteria?
NM [#100],
I guess I wasn’t clear. Those predictions _do_ meet my criteria, particularly since the last four have a concrete time-frame. I disagree with them all, but we have a good basis for checking, on April 30, 2009 (100 days after the inauguration) which of them came true, and which did not.
There are a few more details to work out on some of them. For example, does restoring the “Fairness Doctrine” actually constitute a “full-court press against the 1st amendment”? (I would argue not.) And what time-line are you predicting?
In your own predictions, you are welcome to set a four-to-eight year time frame, but the longer and less precise the temporal window, the less urgency the experiment gets.
There’s a pro-genocide faction in these discussions, here exemplified by Fletcher Christian [#99], but Jim Rockford sometimes argues for the same thing. I find this line of argument appalling on moral grounds.
Certainly anyone who believes in American Exceptionalism must feel that this sort of conclusion is terribly wrong, and beneath us as a nation. Therefore, Un-American in the most fundamental sense.
Furthermore, this kind of argument relies on an important conceptual confusion between individuals and societies. An individual dog may be rabid, and the only way to cope with it is to kill it. An individual person may be pathological, psychologically, morally, or ideologically, and be beyond the approach of reason.
Larger societies behave in different ways. Mob psychology and mass psychosis can be created, but only for short periods of time, since it destroys the fabric that keeps the society going. As a result, in a stable society, the large majority of the people just want to live their own lives in peace and quiet.
Clearly, there are situations where an Adolph Hitler, Slobodon Milosevic, or Osama bin Laden can organize a group of people, sometimes a large group, to behave in beastly ways toward others, and they need to be stopped. Part of the genius of Adolph Hitler was to transform genocide into an industrial mass-production process, so ordinary people could carry on their ordinary lives while doing little bits of the job of genocide. But at the end of World War II, the genius of the victorious Allies was to punish the leaders and forgive the people, allowing them to get back to creating the peaceful and productive civilization they actually wanted.
There may be a threat from some factions within Islam, but genocide or the threat of genocide is not the solution. It is a significant part of the problem.
I for one, Beard, am certainly not pro-genocide. I agree the concept is morally appalling. However, I don’t quite buy your distinction between individual nutcases and the peaceful rest. There is a strong cultural component in the ideology we’re fighting. It is an extreme, but I believe natural, outgrowth of a culture that is brutal in many ways and that worships strength even when that strength is used for brutal oppression. That was the primary reason I did and do support the Iraq war. A belief was rampant in the Middle East that we were weak and would not respond, or would respond ineffectually, to a 911-type event. That belief was not unique to Al Quaeda but was common throughout the Middle East and was extremely conducive to recruiting for AQ. The Iraq war was intended to prove differently. It would have done so more quickly and thoroughly had it not been so thoroughly botched for four years, but it had and is having some of the desired effect. It’s no coincidence that Khadaffi gave up his WMD when he did. And now that we’ve changed course and are defeating Al Quaeda in Iraq, their stock seems to be dropping like a stone according to polls in the Middle East. Now it’s true that that’s partly because Al Quaeda has shown itself to be brutal and insane even by Middle Eastern standards, but it is surely no coincidence that it happens at the same time AQ is looking at defeat in Iraq (assuming President Obama doesn’t prematurely stop the fight). So while genocide is certainly never the answer, a sound thrashing sometimes is. And refusal to administer a sound thrashing when it is required is as dangerous as keeping a lion as a pet. That is one of the primary worries I have about Obama.
Fred [#103],
Certainly it’s clear that suitably inflammatory leaders can arouse hatred in their populations against perceived enemies. The former Yugoslavia is a prime example: a reasonably stable multi-cultural society where moderate levels of ethnic tension were suppressed under Tito. When Tito died, various leaders, including Slobodan Milosevic, saw that their path to power was by inflaming ethnic hatreds among the groups. That continued until the US (under Clinton, and through the UN, by the way) demonstrated that we had overwhelming force, and enforced a peace.
Note the difference between what amounts to a police action enforcing peace, backed up by such overwhelming force that resistance is futile, and delivering “a sound thrashing”, however satisfying that might be.
Why are we winning now in Iraq? Not because our military is thrashing more of them. Rather, it’s because we are now in a position to meet threats with overwhelming force. But more importantly, it’s because we have recruited many of the tribal leaders to act against AQ, in their own interest and with our backing.
This is a critical point to understand. It is essential to the success of _our_ mission that it is *not* the US that is defeating AQI. Rather, it must be the *Iraqis* who defeat AQI, and for their own reasons.
If *we* defeat AQI, then we become occupiers of their country, and we just step back into the role as their most important enemy. If *they* defeat AQI, and we leave Iraq, standing ready to return to help them as needed, then we are helpful allies.
*This* is the point, and the value, of Petraeus’ surge, not just having enough troops to give someone a sound thrashing.