Three Articles Worth Comment

A long ramble on three articles:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367984585224675.html

Thesis: "In the history of empire -- or superpower or hyperpower -- no country has ever wielded its dominance as gently and judiciously as the United States has. Even those abroad and afar who feel they suffered as a result of American foreign policy ought to know that this planet as a whole will fare far worse under China or whatever country comes next, and would have suffered greatly had the Soviets won the Cold War."

Quick Analysis: True.

Deeper Analysis: While I strongly believe in the "gently and judiciously" angle, I'm not convinced that the "American century" is over.

Predicting the future is a difficult task, and while the American economy isn't looking too hot right now, the Chinese economy is suffering a tad, too. The US still has a large population, liberal immigration policies, and the world's strongest democratic traditions. All of these things are great for growth and for influence.

Things could grow much worse. Indeed, it's possible that a fully-Democratic government shifts strongly in favor of regulations, pumping up labor unions whose functions are at least a bit outdated, overregulating an economy (which needs smarter regulations, not a lot more regulations), destroying economic growth and then bringing to life the doomsday predictions of the deficit fear-peddlers. I can accept the premise of the article, but I'm not sure that we're quite ready for the Rome comparisons yet.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama

Thesis: "Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November."

Quick Analysis: I don't think I'll be joining Mr. Buckley, but we'll see.

Deeper Analysis: Christopher Buckley is William F. Buckley's son. He wrote the excellent Thank You For Smoking and is an avowed libertarian-conservative. He's come out strongly in favor of voting for Barack Obama. His case:

- John McCain, a once-authentic, honorable politician, has changed into an "irascible, snarly" inauthentic politician by virtue of this tough campaign.
- The Sarah Palin pick was an embarrassment.
- Barack Obama is a very smart guy.
- As a very smart guy, he will "surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves," and is clear on "what the historical moment is calling for."

My take on this? I find that McCain's campaign has disappointed me, though not immeasurably. Many of the lines of attack he has pursued are legitimate: Obama has attempted to portray himself as a centrist unifier when he has absolutely no record of being a centrist unifier (I was enraged when the AP described him as "centrist" in an article from 2007). On the contrary, Obama has a significantly unique past that has seen him associating with the worst parts of the Chicago political machine, in addition to some hard-core leftists. This is all one story, I think:

- Barack Obama says he's a centrist who can bring people together.
- Barack Obama has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate and no record of bipartisan compromise (certainly less than McCain, who has an extensive record of bipartisan compromise).
- Barack Obama has worked with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and the worst parts of the Chicago political establishment.

This is a legitimate line of inquiry! The media's failing to investigate it more (preferring instead to deal with Sarah Palin's questionable firing of an incompetent police officer) is, to me, the leading indicator of some sort of press "bias" at work.

But back on point: some of the attacks of Obama as an "Other" and of Obama as "The One" smacked of immaturity and hostility. I'm certainly realistic about American politics, and really, very little is out of bounds. But I hoped for more from McCain.

The Palin pick has, for the most part, disappointed me, with the benefit of hindsight. I think she's been overhandled by the McCain campaign. Mostly, though, it appears to be true that it was too hard to bring a neophyte up to speed. Obama's campaign experience, if nothing else, gave him time to take positions on "The Issues." Palin, thrust into McCain's campaign, never had that luxury.

I want to see Sarah Palin run her own national campaign, not McCain's campaign. I want her to take a stand on federal power and the main issues of our time. I think that she has passed a minimum threshold test for national relevance; her convention speech was great, and she has demonstrated poise on a very large stage at a very early age for a politician. But we need to see more. And I'm pretty confident that we haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin.

Continuing on, I believe strongly that Barack Obama is a smart guy. I haven't read his books, but I have read his speeches, and he is the most logical thinker I have seen on the political stage... well, ever. Every point he makes is logical: A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D. It's professorial, but it's excellent.

I do not, however, believe that Obama will be immune to a Democratic Congress, particularly a filibuster-proof one (which is, to say the least, a statistical possibility). Any Democratic Congress will push a left-agenda hard over its two years. I think what we saw in 1992-1994 will be repeated (a president beholden to the Congressional base), but with far worse ramifications.

It is this critical point that I feel Buckley misses. A good conservative understands the benefits of limiting executive power, and whatever Obama wants to do, it is highly unlikely that he will push back against the liberal excesses of his Congress.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/obama_vs_free_speech.html

Thesis: "In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead."

Quick Analysis: Michael Barone's getting testy!

Deeper Analysis: When I first read this piece, I was shocked that it was Michael Barone. Barone is one of my... three favorite political analysts. I think Barone went a bit too far, but... I find it to ring true.

The Obama campaign and its surrogates have aggressively attacked legitimate lines of inquiry (as I postulated before). I can't say that I thought of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" when I first started recognizing this fact, but it's a valid comparison. The "Alien and Sedition Acts" were the products of surrogates of the (First) Adams administration, as Federalists tried desperately to protect the presidency from the evil Jeffersonians. The transfer of power, after the fact, was smooth and peaceful, establishing the precedent for the next two centuries. The laws were quietly repealed in 1801.

The larger picture is that Barone, a conservative, is coming to the realization that the next two years may well see a filibuster-proof Democratic majority. I think it has colored his recent analysis, sadly.