You are here

Politics

The Dry Wit of Roger McShane

Slate's Today's Papers column from today contains several classics:

All of the papers allow the politicians to dominate the debate over the stimulus, with the NYT and WP (which is not a fan of the package) featuring House Minority Leader John Boehner's predictable criticism. "We cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity," he said (for the first time in eight years).

and

The WP reports that al-Qaida is peeved at Barack Obama. With polls showing the new president popular in the Muslim world, the terrorist group has resorted to hurling insults at him, even when they make no sense. The Post notes, "He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office."

and

The NYT fronts a profile of Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff who, officials say, has calmed considerably. Ray Lahood, the new transportation secretary, says Emanuel has increasingly taken on the demeanor of his boss, whom he still teases...like when he told one congressman that he was too busy to talk and handed his phone to Obama.

and finally

The NYT Magazine's cover story tackles the age-old question: "What do women want?" But after 7,372 words and numerous clinical references to genital arousal, the answer is still frustratingly unclear. TP imagines that a similar article on what men want would be significantly shorter.

The Next President

I started this post right after the election but set it aside until now (just before the inauguration) to finish up and publish after a little more time for reflection.  It has two parts.  First, a bit about race and the recent election.  Second, some of the stuff that I was reading and watching right after the election that highlighted its significance.

Part 1: Race and Obama's election

Race was a big issue in this past election.  How could it not be?  A country with slavery and ubiquitous racial discrimination lurking in it's recent (relatively speaking) past was considering electing its first black president.  For the most part, Obama avoided the discussion of race because he didn't want to make white voters uncomfortable by being "the black candidate."  However, he still had to find a way to appeal to blacks because they needed some convincing too.  The uproar over Rev. Wright forced Obama to give a "A More Perfect Union" speech in which he encouraged Americans move beyond "racial stalemate" to address our common social problems.  His tight-rope walk to woo one group while not alienating the other was described in a recent article in The Atlantic (link).  Despite Obama's lack of emphasis on race, many of his supporters saw an underlying racial element in the attacks and TV ads of his opponents.  On the other side, many made the accusation that Colin Powell's endorsement, for example, was all about race.  On YouTube we saw evidence that some voters felt like they just couldn't trust a black man as president.  After the election, in the comments sections of web sites and on Facebook you saw people questioning the legitimacy of the election because (for example) of the fact that Obama received 95 % of the black vote...

As illustrated by this graph from FactCheck.org (link), African Americans have been voting overwhelmingly Democrat in presidential elections for the last 50 years:

Black_Vote_Pres

This trend, not coincidentally I think, also parallels the Republicans' "southern strategy," via which they are purported to have attempted to improve their electoral success by exploiting racism among whites in the south.  Yes, Obama won 95 % of the black vote (link), but that's hardly a striking anomaly compared to the level of support all the white Democratic candidates have received during the last 50 years.  If blacks or the electorate as a whole just wanted a black person (any black person) as president, we've had several other options in the recent past (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, Shirley Chisholm, Lenora Fulani, and Carol Moseley Braun).  Furthermore, black voters were famously tepid in the support for Obama until after he won the Iowa primary and showed that he was a viable candidate able to convince whites to give him their votes.  It's not surprising that blacks would tend to be excited to have a president that shares their ethnicity.  Whites have had that luxury since the country was founded.  It's not surprising that many of us are excited that out country has elected it's first black president and will (presumably and hopefully soon) elect it's first female president.  Despite the results of all of our previous elections, we know that white men are not the only good candidates for president.  There are plenty of capable women and minorities, and it is exciting to see an election reflect that fact rather than continuing the legacy of discrimination.  This is worth celebrating.  On that note...

 

Part 2:

Here are a few excerpts from some the of the stuff that I was reading and watching in the wake of Obama's victory:

Texas in Africa
like you

When we went to see Obama speak in Austin in January, our little group was next to this woman and her son. He was maybe three or four years old, and of course couldn't see, so people around her took turns holding him up. It was way past his bedtime when Obama finally took the stage, I'm sure.

There was a lot going on that night, and I wasn't watching him for most of it, but when Obama first came out and his mother picked him up, the little boy looked at the stage, got a confused look, and asked his mom a question:

"Is he white or brown?"

"He's brown," his mom replied. "Like you."

For me, that may have been the most powerful moment of this campaign. The thought that that little boy can grow up in a world where he will believe that anything is possible for his life has just overwhelmed me. He will grow up in a world where the formal discrimination that governed his grandparents' lives, and the implicit racism that affected his parents' will lose some of its power. All because of this election.

Shame of racial history not easily lifted, but what a start
Kathleen Parker, conservative columnist

'Fess up. You wept.

OK, I'll go first. Tears came twice.

First, when John McCain hushed his booing crowd to acknowledge the significance of this nation's electing an African-American to the presidency. Second, when Barack Obama delivered his acceptance speech

This may say more about my friends than about Obama, but I haven't spoken to anyone who didn't become emotional. (Please don't write to tell me you were unmoved. I think you've already been in touch.)

Owing to my pale pigmentation and heritage, perhaps I am not able to fully understand the impact that Obama's election has had on African-Americans.
But like many other Americans, especially Southerners, my life is inextricably intertwined with the African-American experience. It isn't just a bit of thread or texture in life's tapestry, but is central to my emotional and psychological constitution

During the next four years, we will differ with our new president on policies and appointments, but we can all agree on the momentousness of this transaction. There's something different in the air.

The day after the election, an African-American woman and I were marveling about events and trying to put our finger on what had changed. That thing. The little speck of difference that kept us imperceptibly apart had been dissolved in a lovely instant of national consensus that race no longer matters.

Of course that's an overstatement to say that race no longer matters, but it is certainly encouraging that race is no longer a disqualifier.  Obama didn't win a majority of the white vote.  Though none of the other Democratic candidates have done so in the last 50 years, Timothy Noah makes the argument (link) that the Democrat's deficit with white voters is related to race (the fact that Lyndon Johnson, the last Democrat to win a majority of the white vote, signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law).

Audacity of America uncovered
Steve Chapman, conservative columnist

The improbability of his rise should help sustain conservatives in their hour of disappointment. This election furnishes irrefutable proof that America is a special country, with possibilities that don't exist elsewhere.

It shows that our harshest critics - Jeremiah Wright Jr. comes to mind - are missing something essential. No one of good will can look at what happened Tuesday and say, "God damn America."

Anyone watching the crowds celebrating this victory could see they were not motivated by a rigid left-wing ideology but by the principles America has enshrined since its founding: liberty, equality, opportunity and respect for the individual. They want to purge the original sin of racial oppression. They want to fulfill our ideals, not abandon them

The notable aspect of John McCain's concession speech Tuesday night was how different it was from everything coming from his campaign in the months before. It was temperate, generous and noble in spirit, and it made you wonder: Where has this guy been hiding, and why?

The striking thing about Obama's speech, by contrast, was how consistent it was with how he conducted himself from the start. It retained the subtext of his campaign: We are a better, more tolerant, more civil, more unified country than our politics has suggested in recent years. We can overcome our differences, racial and other.

At many points in the last two years, there has been reason to think Obama was wrong. It doesn't look that way now.

 

A Path Beyond Grievance (link)
William Raspberry

 

It's been said that the ascendancy of Barack Obama signals the beginning of a "post-racial" America.

I wish. What we have witnessed, I think, is something less profound but still hugely significant. Obama's election means that in America, including at the highest levels of our politics, race is no longer an automatic deal-breaker. That's a major step forward in the thinking of white America.

For black America, Obama may be the harbinger of a different transformation: the movement away from what might be called the civil rights paradigm. Since the astounding success of the civil rights movement nearly half a century ago, America's black leadership has been a civil rights leadership, focused almost exclusively on grievance -- America owes us the right to vote, to enjoy places of public accommodation, to attend nonsegregated schools, to be free of the laws that underlie American-style apartheid.

America listened, and changed.

What more recent black leaders have not acknowledged is that there are some problems that the grievance model cannot address. The schools black children attend don't work as well as they should -- but most often for reasons that have less to do with white attitudes than with our own. Many black children -- and too many of their parents -- don't value education. If they do, they see it as a debt owed rather than a prize to be earned. Their resulting undereducation renders them specially vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the job market. Black communities are beset by crime and violence but, again, less because of racism than because of lack of discipline in those communities. One key reason for this failure of discipline is the dissolution of black families -- not because of discrimination but because black Americans lead the nation in fatherlessness, having allowed marriage to fall to an all-time-low priority.

Maya Angelou: I'm So Proud

Steven Waldman
My Voting Experience -- "Thank You, Jesus"

I just finished voting. My neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York is mostly Carribean-American and strongly Obama.

A few observations.

Very few signs. On most election days, all up and down Rogers Ave, you see signs for various candidates. This time, no. You wouldn't even know there's an election. (Life in a non-battleground state!)

The lines coming out of the elementary school stretched around three city blocks. The tone was not ecstatic. It was serious. People were friendly but definitely not jubilant. It had more the feeling that they were doing important work.

Hard not to get emotional as very old, or handicapped, black voters shuffled up the front of the line.

Finally, perhaps sensing the strangely quiet nature of the line, someone jumped out of a building screaming at the top of her lungs in joy. Everyone laughed nervously. "Let it out," she said.

Another older woman walked up and down the street, declaring. "Thank you. Thank you. We've suffered too long. Thank you for being here. Praise the Lord. Thank you, Jesus." Some quiet Amens were whispered back.

Suzie Estes
I Cried

About fifteen minutes ago, Barack Obama was confirmed by all the news channels to be the 44th President of the United States, and I did something that I never would have predicted...I cried.

You see, this morning, when I was driving to a nearby park to walk, I noticed a young, black male walking down my street from nearby apartments. Later, on my way to the gym, I saw him walking away from a polling place, and it dawned on me that he had gone to vote and was now returning home. I thought about what a moment that must have been for him, a boy of around eighteen to wake up early, walk a mile, and cast a vote for a President who looked like him...

So while I didn't vote for Senator Obama, and oppose many of his plans and policies, tonight, I have to acknowledge the historic significance of his victory, and celebrate the doors of new possibilities opened in the hearts and minds of the children who have been watching.

Greg Fielder
History

It truly was a historic day. On a couple of different occasions last night I felt my eyes filling with water. Watching the Obama family walk onto the stage in Chicago was one of those times, and it was a remarkable moment. Change has indeed come to America.

I am not an African American. I have not experienced the things that black people in this country have had to live through, and I never will. It meant a lot to me last night to see the first family walk out on that stage and have them not look like me. But I cannot comprehend how African Americans in this country felt to watch that same scene unfold when, for the first time in our country's history, the first family does look like themselves. It was moving to see closeup shots of Jesse Jackson and Oprah in the crowd, with tears streaming down their face, knowing that it means far more to them and thousands of others who have looked forward to this day for so long. I saw a number of black parents interviewed who said something to the effect of, “Now when I tell my son/daughter that they can be anything they want to, they can believe me without a doubt. Yes, you can.

I did not vote for Barack so that we could have an African American in the White House. Voting based on what race a candidate is (or isn't) would be foolish. I felt like he was the best choice for this country at this time. And I look forward to the next four years. But the historical significance of this moment cannot be minimized.

A Butler Well Served by This Election
Wil Haygood

For 34 Years, Eugene Allen Carried White House Trays With Pride. Now There's Even More Reason to Carry Himself That Way.

Eugene Robinson
Stepping Into the Sunshine

It's obvious that the power of this moment isn't something that only African-Americans feel. When President Bush spoke about the election Wednesday, he mentioned the important message that Americans will send to the world, and to themselves, when the Obama family moves into the White House.

For African-Americans, though, this is personal.

I can't help but experience Obama's election as a gesture of recognition and acceptance -- which is patently absurd, if you think about it. The labor of black people made this great nation possible. Black people planted and tended the tobacco, indigo and cotton on which America's first great fortunes were built. Black people fought and died in every one of the nation's wars. Black people fought and died to secure our fundamental rights under the Constitution. We don't have to ask for anything from anybody.

Yet something changed on Tuesday when Americans -- white, black, Latino, Asian -- entrusted a black man with the power and responsibility of the presidency. I always meant it when I said the Pledge of Allegiance in school. I always meant it when I sang the national anthem at ball games and shot off fireworks on the Fourth of July. But now there's more meaning in my expressions of patriotism, because there's more meaning in the stirring ideals that the pledge and the anthem and the fireworks represent.

It's not that I would have felt less love of country if voters had chosen John McCain. And this reaction I'm trying to describe isn't really about Obama's policies. I'll disagree with some of his decisions, I'll consider some of his public statements mere double talk and I'll criticize his questionable appointments. My job will be to hold him accountable, just like any president, and I intend to do my job.

For me, the emotion of this moment has less to do with Obama than with the nation. Now I know how some people must have felt when they heard Ronald Reagan say "it's morning again in America." The new sunshine feels warm on my face.

Ellen Goodman
The Relay Race of Social Change

Race was not "the issue" in this election. The issue was the economy. The issue was the war. The issue was the dark conviction that America was heading on a disastrously wrong track. We chose the cool hand of a change agent.

But if race wasn't the "issue," it was the "story" in the word history. It was the narrative, the huge question mark hovering around our sense of self on magazine covers and conversations that asked: "Is America Ready for a Black President?" It ended with a resounding "Yes, we can."

Americans didn't vote for Obama to prove that this is not the same country that once sicced dogs on black schoolchildren. But it proves that.

Americans didn't pick Obama to rebrand our country and trash the cartoon images put forth by our enemies. But it does that.

We didn't choose Obama to show that scare-mongering - socialism! Muslim! Barack the Redistributor! - has failed. But it shows that.

So too, we didn't push the lever for Obama to crack the shell of cynicism that dampens the expectations of inner-city black teenage sons of single mothers. And we didn't elect Obama to grab back the word "values" from those who use it as a wedge. But these messages also lurk in the 7-million-vote margin of victory.

We arrived at a moment when change was the most conservative option. The 47-year-old president-elect came to represent the belief that Americans had to embrace change to conserve those things that mean the most to us, including our country's future.

So Tuesday we voted to reboot America. All the same problems Obama listed are on the desktop this morning: "two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century." It won't be long before excitement is edged with impatience.

But this is a day to bear witness to a victory lap in the relay race of social change.

Even some of the folks who during the campaign were making rather ridiculous charges about Obama's patriotism, for example, had positive things to say afterwards (link):

Just a few weeks ago, at the height of the campaign, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota told Chris Matthews of MSNBC that, when it came to Mr. Obama, "I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views."

But there she was on Thursday, after narrowly escaping defeat because of those comments, saying she was "extremely grateful that we have an African-American who has won this year." Ms. Bachmann, a Republican, called Mr. Obama's victory, which included her state, "a tremendous signal we sent."

In the next few days, Lisa and I plan to make the trip to D.C. to celebrate the inauguration of Barack Obama.  Frankly, despite all the polls, I was still pleasantly surprised that in the end he won.  I know many people considered an Obama election to be a disaster for this country.  I don't think so, but history will tell.  I have no doubt, though, that it was a major positive milestone in our country's racial history...and I celebrate it.

Complaining about Warren's Invocation

Not that I'm a huge fan of Rick Warren (though I admire his reverse tithing and work against poverty and A.I.D.S.), but it seems kind of lame that so many are complaining (link link link link link link) about Obama inviting Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.  It reminds me of pro-life groups whining about Warren and Obama partnering to fight A.I.D.S.

Waldman explains why he respects Warren here: link

Update (17 Dec 08):

This firedoglake post (link) is exactly what I'm talking about.  To me, calling Warren a "warmongering torture apologist" is from the same playbook as saying that Obama supports infanticide.

Another update (17 Dec 08):

Raushenbush also doesn't have his knickers in a twist (link)

Update (18 Dec 08):

See what I mean: link

Where's the Change?

That's the question many folks who strongly dislike Obama (to put it mildly) are asking these days in response to the fact that his appointments have been heavy on respected, experienced, centrist "insiders" rather than inexperienced "outsiders."  I can't help but wonder if there is any appointment Obama could have made that they would have praised.  I think Ta-Nehisi Coates is right on when he writes (link):

Am I the only one not surprised that, in the midst of economic calamity and two wars, Obama's going with some experienced hands? [if] Obama's early nominations had swung hard left, whatever that would be, there'd be a ton of stories with headlines like "Obama abandons bipartisanship" and ledes like "He ran on change and bipartisanship, but President-Elect Obama has veered sharply to the left..."

I think these folks are mistaken about what kind of change Obama has promised.  The way I understood it (and I did follow the campaign fairly closely), Obama has promised a change in policy from the last 8 years and an end to the hyper-partisan politics of division, not that his administration would be filled with political newbies from outside the beltway (GWB was the one who ran as a Washington outsider before abandoning that rhetoric, link).  I expected him to govern as a centrist (not the ultra-liberal caricature the right has painted) and to appoint smart, competent, experienced people.

Some conservatives are going to be critical no matter what.  Some liberals are upset that the appointments are more centrist than far left.  However, for the most part, Obama's appointments have been praised by conservatives and liberals alike.  Here is a sampling:

From Reuters (link):

In his first news conference since conceding defeat to Democrat Obama on election night three weeks ago [John McCain] applauded Obama's appointments to government, including the likelihood Democratic Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano would be named secretary of homeland security and the economic team being announced this week.

"I think frankly that Senator Obama has nominated some people to his economic team that we can work with, that are well respected, and ... I approve of many of them," McCain said.

"And so I think, my message is to all Americans, as I said on election night, respect this landmark election, respect the fact America faces great challenges and Americans expect us to work together," he said.

From right-wing blogger Hugh Hewitt (link):

The economics side of Team Obama is impressive, and the GOP should be worried that the president-elect intends to talk left and govern right.

From "Obama advisers get bipartisan high marks" by Richard Wolf in USA Today (link):

President-elect Barack Obama got high marks from the White House to Wall Street on Monday for choosing crafty economic policymakers to lead the nation through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

"Brilliant," "outstanding" and "exceptionally talented" were some of the words used to describe his two top choices Timothy Geithner, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, for Treasury secretary, and former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers for National Economic Council director and that came from Republicans.

From Max Boot, contributing editor to The Weekly Standard (link):

As someone who was skeptical of Obama's moderate posturing during the campaign, I have to admit that I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain. (Jim Jones is an old friend of McCain's, and McCain almost certainly would have asked Gates to stay on as well.) This all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign. His appointments suggest that, if anything, his administration will have a Reapolitiker, rather than a liberal, bent, although Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for "neo-liberalism" which is not so different in many respects from "neo-conservativism". Both, for instance, support humanitarian interventions in places like Darfur and Bosnia.

Combined with the moderation of the economic team that Obama has just named, I would say his administration already far exceeds expectations, and he hasn't even taken office yet.

From conservative columnist Larry Kudlow (link):

Stocks, for one, like what they're seeing from Obama's latest cabinet selections. On Friday, Obama announced Tim Geithner will be his Treasury man, and on Monday he made Larry Summers his White House economics tsar and named Christine Romer to the top spot in the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). Stocks rallied 900 points across this stretch. That's not the end of the stock story. Markets also like the new super-TARP government plan to bailout Citigroup, which effectively guarantees the banking system with a massive insurance-like policy. But markets may also sense a little pro-growth good news in the Obama policy mix

Here's my thought on his team. Summers, Geithner, and Romer will all recommend no tax hikes in a recession. Maybe for Keynesian reasons; maybe a nod to supply-siders. Obama talked about a liberal-conservative consensus. But what's especially encouraging is the appointment of Ms. Romer, who easily could serve as CEA head in a Republican administration (just like Geithner could have been McCain's Treasury man)

That's what makes the Romer appointment so interesting. In fact, there is no question that Obama's economic team is right of center. All three are market-oriented. They're also pro-free-trade. Hopefully Summers and Geithner maintain the Robert Rubin King Dollar policy of the Clinton years. And if Ms. Romer can stop tax hikes, that will help the greenback even more.

At a minimum, both Romer and Geithner could have served under Gerald Ford or George H. W. Bush. But they may be more pro-growth than that. Romer's study of the damage of tax hikes on the economy and her emphasis on investment are right on target. In a New York Times story, a former Treasury colleague of Geithner's says, "he's no liberal." As for Summers, while he has been mau-maued by Democratic feminists and some of the unions, he is a tough, clear-headed thinker who has for years tried to merge Keynesian and supply-side policies. No mean feat.

From columnist Glenn Greenwald (link):

It goes without saying that there will be Obama policies, both in the foreign policy and domestic realms, that are vastly superior to what we've seen the last eight years and to what we would have seen had McCain/Palin won.  And as the second-tier positions begin to fill out, there will probably be a handful of appointees who progressives consider to be one of their own.  And as Digby points out, the magnitude of the financial crisis may compel him to embrace policies that are deemed to be quite progressive (from massive stimulus packages and government intervention in the economy to a diminution of our foreign adventurism).

But Barack Obama is a centrist, establishment politician.  That is what he has been since he's been in the Senate, and more importantly, it's what he made clear -- both explicitly and through his actions -- that he intended to be as President.  Even in the primary, he paid no price whatsoever for that in terms of progressive support.  As is true for the national Democratic Party generally, he has no good reason to believe he needs to accommodate liberal objections to what he is doing.  The Joe Lieberman fiasco should have made that as conclusively clear as it gets. 

From Alex Knapp at Outside the Beltway (link):

I have to say, I'm frankly quite surprised that people are so surprised that a guy who ran for President on the grounds that he is a consensus building centrist is making cabinet picks that reflect his desire to be a consensus building centrist. The selection of Hillary to State and his other appointments, frankly, don't surprise me one bit. Obama is clearly choosing people with a history of actually getting things done while in office who generally share his political views.

From James Joyner at Outside the Beltway (link):

there's a Machiavellian shrewdness to all this.  Obama can afford to alienate the Hard Left, especially this far from 2012, so cementing his reputation as a serious person and avoiding the youthful amateurism that many moderates fear is smart politics.

Sure enough, thus far at least, the Netroots are mostly keeping their powder dry.

From Kathleen Reardon (link):

...if Obama supporters ever thought he'd wipe the slate clean, they hadn't studied politics. Sure, confidence that things wouldn't be the same as the past eight years was realistic, but believing for a minute that even something vastly different could be accomplished without many in the old guard -- at least the Democratic one -- is the thinking of a political purist.

Highly political arenas like Washington D. C. are not suited to purists. The town teems with street fighters. Jimmy Carter learned that the hard way. And Barack Obama is too sharp and too avid a reader to not know that there are at least as many people wanting a new president to fail as there are hoping for his success. He chose Joe Biden for his running mate because he has high regard for experience. The line-up we're seeing now for the top spots validates that.

And I realize David Brooks has fallen out of favor with right-wingers, but he really lays it on thick in the NY Times (link):

I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition.

The fact that they can already leak one big appointee per day is testimony to an awful lot of expert staff work. Unlike past Democratic administrations, they are not just handing out jobs to the hacks approved by the favored interest groups. They're thinking holistically there's a nice balance of policy wonks, governors and legislators. They're also thinking strategically. As Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute notes, it was smart to name Tom Daschle both the head of Health and Human Services and the health czar. Splitting those duties up, as Bill Clinton did, leads to all sorts of conflicts.

Most of all, they are picking Washington insiders. Or to be more precise, they are picking the best of the Washington insiders.

Obama seems to have dispensed with the romantic and failed notion that you need inexperienced "fresh faces" to change things. After all, it was L.B.J. who passed the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, because he is so young, Obama is not bringing along an insular coterie of lifelong aides who depend upon him for their well-being.

As a result, the team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory. One may not agree with them on everything or even most things, but a few things are indisputably true.

First, these are open-minded individuals who are persuadable by evidence. Orszag, who will probably be budget director, is trusted by Republicans and Democrats for his honest presentation of the facts.

Second, they are admired professionals. Conservative legal experts have a high regard for the probable attorney general, Eric Holder, despite the business over the Marc Rich pardon.

Third, they are not excessively partisan. Obama signaled that he means to live up to his postpartisan rhetoric by letting Joe Lieberman keep his committee chairmanship.

Fourth, they are not ideological. The economic advisers, Furman and Goolsbee, are moderate and thoughtful Democrats. Hillary Clinton at State is problematic, mostly because nobody has a role for her husband. But, as she has demonstrated in the Senate, her foreign-policy views are hardheaded and pragmatic. (It would be great to see her set of interests complemented by Samantha Power's set of interests at the U.N.)

Finally, there are many people on this team with practical creativity. Any think tanker can come up with broad doctrines, but it is rare to find people who can give the president a list of concrete steps he can do day by day to advance American interests. Dennis Ross, who advised Obama during the campaign, is the best I've ever seen at this, but Rahm Emanuel also has this capacity, as does Craig and legislative liaison Phil Schiliro.

In contrast to the last president who ran as a uniter before taking a hard right yet fiscally undisciplined turn and running a highly partisan administration, I think a shrewd, disciplined, centrist (while remaining true to his generally liberal convictions) is exactly what our divided country needs right now so I too like what I'm seeing so far.

Update 28 Nov 08:

Karl Rove in the WSJ (link):

...overall, Monday's announcement of Mr. Obama's economic team was reassuring. He's generally surrounded himself with intelligent, mainstream advisers. Investors, workers and business owners can only hope that, over time, this new administration's economic policies bear more of their market-oriented imprint.

Update 29 Nov 08:

I think folks are defining "bringing change to Washington" in a way that Obama didn't define it and then accusing him of breaking his word. I'd like to see some documentation of Obama promising to fill his administration with Washington outsiders or promising not to include people associated with Clinton. I think it's not fair to (effectively) claim that he promised to do that and is now breaking that promise. The explicit "Washington outsider" theme was only a MINOR one that he referred to during the primary campaign to contrast HIMSELF with Clinton (e.g. link). The MAJOR "change to Washington" themes that he emphasized throughout were change from the policy direction of Bush and a change from the politics of division. That is what he explicitly said regarding bringing change to Washington, not anything (correct me if I'm wrong) about filling his administration with outsiders. In the contest with McCain, he contrasted "change" with "more of the same" where "more of the same" was the Bush policies that he claimed McCain would continue. He did not define "more of the same" as people associated with Clinton, the only Democratic president we've had during the last 30 years. He's not yet implementing policy, so we can't judge him yet on that. On the second, the chorus of praise for his appointments so far is an indication that he is at least off to a good start.

Update 29 Nov 08:

The Economist (link):

Mr Obama's policies may not be any more successful at combating the financial crisis and recession than those of George Bush. But it does seem safe to say that economics will play a bigger part in the formation of those policies. Three of the first four members of the team to be named are well-regarded PhD-holding economists and the fourth, Tim Geithner, the new treasury secretary, is a respected central banker (he heads the Federal Reserve Bank of New York). Only one of the four people they will replace shares a comparable background...

It is a striking contrast with the outgoing administration, in which economists never had much clout. Consider the Office of Management and Budget director, who as overseer of $3 trillion in federal spending plays a pivotal role in setting economic priorities. Mr Bush has had four: one was a pharmaceuticals executive, one did government relations for an investment bank, and two were congressmen. All four trained as lawyers. Mr Obama's nominee, Peter Orszag, the outgoing director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, is a professional economist known for such page-turners as "Saving Social Security", a 300-page tome boasting 37 pages of footnotes and eight appendices. Whether Mr Orszag will be tough enough with the red pencil, however, is something that his track-record does not tell us. The team's other striking feature is its centrism.

Update 30 Nov 08:

Former Bush adviser: Obama's cabinet is much less ideological than George Bush's cabinet.' (link

On ABC's This Week today, former Bush strategist Matthew Dowd marveled at President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet choices, saying that Obama will have "one of the most pragmatic, least ideological cabinets that we've seen in a long time." Dowd noted that this contrasted with how his former boss picked his staff when he first entered office:

DOWD: Much less ideological than George Bush's cabinet when he appointed it, when he first came into office. People that have disagreements. He has disagreements with his potential Secretary of State. He has disagreements with the person that's going to run his Pentagon. It's an amazing thing he has done that.

Update 01 Dec 08:

John Warner, Republican Senator and former Navy Secretary and Armed Services Chairman (link):

"The triumvirate of Gates, Clinton and Jones to lead Obama's national security team instills great confidence at home and abroad and further strengthens the growing respect for the president-elect's courage and ability to exercise sound judgment," Warner said in a statement.  

Henry Kissinger (link):

Kissinger said it would show "great courage on the part of the President-elect to appoint a very strong personality, who has an independent constituency, into a cabinet position." 

Bobby Jindal, Republican governor of Louisiana (link):

"I think the American people are tired of campaigns and politics," Jindal said. "We need to get behind our new president and our new Congress, support them, and stop being Democrats and Republicans." 

 

Tags: 

The Future of the Conservative Movement

I'm not talking about whether or not it's Sarah Palin.  I'm talking about the direction it (and the Republican party) will take in the wake of the Bush administration and the recent election results.  From a recent article by Philip Klein from The American Spectator titled "The Future of the Right" (link):

About two-dozen conservative leaders met today at the Stanley, Virginia home of Media Research Center President Brent Bozell in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains to discuss conservatism's future in the wake of Tuesday's election results.

TAS Publisher Al Regnery and editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell were on hand, along with leaders from policy groups and grassroots organizations representing each pillar of the conservative coalition, from Christian conservatives to libertarians, and everybody in between.

"As the afternoon went on, it didn't take long for attendees to become resolute in their resistance to moderates and to the opinion that the conservative movement will become the opposition to Obama," Tyrrell said.

One attendee said, "We're no longer going to support Republicans who want to 'improve' a bad bill. We're going to oppose all bad bills."

and then

Looking back at the campaign, they felt that John McCain wasn't really a conservative, and that Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber were the two best things that happened because of the way they connected with people.

In an article in the LA Times titled "The GOP looking glass", Jonah Goldberg frames the soul searching this way (link):

In one corner, there are a large number of bright, mostly younger, self-styled reformers with a diverse -- and often contradictory -- set of proposals to win back middle-class voters and restore the GOP's status as "the party of ideas" (as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it).

In another corner are self-proclaimed traditional conservatives and Reaganites, led most notably by Rush Limbaugh, who believe that the party desperately needs to get back to the basics: limited government, low taxes and strong defense.

What is fascinating is that both camps seem implicitly to agree that the real challenge lurks in how to account for the Bush years. For the young Turks and their older allies -- my National Review colleagues Ramesh Ponnuru, Yuval Levin and David Frum, the Atlantic's Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, New York Times columnist David Brooks et al -- the problem is that Bush botched the GOP's shot at real reform. For the Limbaugh crowd, the issue seems to be that we've already tried this reform stuff -- from both Bush and McCain -- and look where it's gotten us.

and then:

The irony is that both camps agree on a lot more than they disagree. The reformers are committed to market principles and reducing the size and role of government, and so are the back-to-basics crowd. The problem is that an elephant named George in the room is blocking each side from seeing what the other is all about. But hopefully not for much longer.

It seems to me that the realities of electoral demographics will be critical for charting electoral success for conservatives in the coming decades.  In another LA Times article titled "Democrats set sights on Texas" (link), Peter Wallsten writes:

As they review the results of Tuesday's election victories and begin looking toward future campaigns, some Democrats have settled on a rallying cry: Texas is next.

It sounds improbable for the Republican bastion that produced President Bush and served as an early laboratory for Karl Rove's hard-nosed tactics. But Texas is one of several reliably red states that are now in Democrats' sights as party strategists begin to analyze a victorious 2008 campaign that they believe showed the contours of a new movement that could grow and prove long-lasting.

A multiethnic bloc of Latinos, blacks, young people and suburban whites helped to broaden the party's reach Tuesday well beyond its traditional base in the Northeast and the West Coast -- carrying Barack Obama into the White House and expanding the party's majorities in Congress.

That new formula was evident in state exit polls and county-level election results showing that Democrats scored gains from a voting base that is growing progressively less white than the population that helped forge Republican advantages in past elections. In state after state, from GOP strongholds like North Carolina, Indiana and Colorado, minorities made up a larger share of the vote than in the past, and in each case they helped turn states from red to blue.

and then

Latinos made up a greater share of the electorate than in the past in every Southwestern state, according to exit polls compiled by CNN. And in each Southwestern state, as well as Florida, the Democrat pulled a bigger percentage of the Latino vote -- a turnaround from 2004, when President Bush cut deeply into Democrats' hold on Latinos and won that bloc in Florida, where many Cuban Americans remain loyal to the GOP.

Projections from the US Census Bureau (link) indicate that by 2042 non-Hispanic whites will no longer represent a majority of the US population. 

Here is a summary of the projections comparing 2008 to 2050:

Population projections

 
2008
2050

Non-Hispanic whites
68%
46%

Hispanic
15%
30%

African Americans
12%
15%

Asian American
5%
9%

 

 

 

 

 

If those projections turn out to be anywhere close to reality, it's obvious that the Republican party's prospects will continue to decline over the next few decades if it is fairly or unfairly  stereotyped as as "anti-immigrant" or the party of white people.  Those aren't fair descriptions of the Republican party or conservative political movement as a whole, but those tendencies are there and could be exacerbated depending on the direction conservatives take in response to their recent defeats.  The nearly uniform whiteness seen among the party leaders and the crowds at the party convention illustrate the danger that it could be perceived as not a party for all of us.  This is one of the reasons that it is important that people like Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele become significant faces of the party.  Regardless, it seems that issues of changing demographics have to be given weight as the conservatives chart their course forward.

 

 

 

 

 

Pages

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer