ClearCommentary.com

The Republican Debate: Politics and Substance

Talk about planting questions, CNN's "Rebulican" debate last evening included the predictable litany of leftist questions from CNN, including gays in the military, the confederate flag, and ethanol.  All of this would be more acceptable except for the fact that we don't recall them asking about partial-birth abortion or the efficacy of teaching condom etiquette for kids at the Democratic debate.

But those are the kinds of double standards Republicans have come to expect in this Janus-faced nation where the media is wholly unaccountable and viewers are subject to abuse.

Beyond that, one thing you can say about last evening's Republican You-Tube debate is that it combined entertainment with a measure of substance, something rather rare for venues that typically feature canned responses and the kind of false politeness that is as transparent as it is annoying.

Voters have long ago been disabused of the notion that presidential candidates are super humans with a unique genetic stamp.  Indeed, candidates can advance the argument that we're electing people, not merely politicians, by providing candid glimpses into their real personalities and by exposing voters to some unguarded moments of stark sincerity.  Last evening, thanks to the somewhat informal nature of the questioning, that element seemed to seep into the otherwise starched atmosphere.

It's always risky to handicap debates because it's little more than a reflection of one's preferred candidate.  To a large extent political strength, not unlike beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.  That aside, wittingly or otherwise, Mitt Romney seems to have emerged from his cocoon of unidimensionalism into full 3-D.  His usual blend of rote recitations and rebuttals was supplanted by a welcome mix of candor, rhetorical energy, and ripostes that showcased a personality that is far more likable than one might have imagined.

While they were sufficiently engaged, the second and third tier candidates had the look of past tense, in particular Reps. Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter, and Sen. Thompson.  Although Thompson's quick wit was on display it seemed incidental to his ability to project political strength and viability.  But the three congressmen, in particular Paul seemed more like political props than truly viable presidential candidates.

That leaves us with the three most of us thought would be standing in two months:  Romney, Guiliani, and McCain.  Whether it's his age or the fact that he's tried this before and failed, we don't see McCain lasting much beyond the first three battles, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

The candidates with the most energy, the broadest gamut of fresh ideas, and general election credibility, are clearly Romney and Guiliani, and that has all the earmarks of a fascinating contest.  Although their differences are obvious, these are two instinctively conservative men who differ only on issues that are arguably less important at the federal level than ever before--abortion, gay marriage, guns and the like.

What mainstream voters seem to yearn for is a fresh face with new and creative ideas, one who will protect America without qualification or apology, someone with a sense of fiscal stewardship, and, crucially, someone who has the intellectual agility of a Jack Kennedy and the political certitude and optimism of a Ronald Reagan.

Determining who among the Republican candidates that might be will be engaging political theater, knowing it will most likely put that individual in a pitched battle with Sen. Clinton.

Stay tuned.

Senator Obama: Vying for the Losing Solution

As we've observed, the paradoxes of the modern liberal sensibility are as varied as they are perplexing.  From the post-modern impulse to jettison traditional values such as the sanctity of marriage to vilifying guns rather than criminals, the pantheon of ill-informed ideas is at once ignoble and hostile to the common good.

The latest example hails from Peter Beinart, writing in today's Washington Post, wherein he makes the case that Senator Obama isn't getting the credit he deserves for his denunciation of the war in Iraq and, in particular, his vote against it.

We'll stipulate that the left wing of the Democratic Party is immune to understanding the geopolitical benefits of an Iraq without Saddam Hussein in power, an Iraq that is self-governed, both of which are threats to Iran and Syria.  It's also axiomatic that a candidate must win the primary before the general election, but the day of reckoning will happen and if the progress so much in evidence today in Iraq continues, candidates who criticized America's goal of a free Iraq may rue their anti-war positions.

It's a relic of the Vietnam years that the left has successfully, if misguidedly reanimated that leads them to believe that it's somehow worse that 25 million Iraqis are now living in some semblance of freedom than under the iron boot of the despotic Hussein.  Indeed, as Mr. Beinart himself notes, many candidates have historically suffered major losses from voters who instinctively side with those who want America to win.  So, why is he convinced that Mr. Obama would benefit from his anti-war stance, now that meaningful progress is being made?

When you enter their universe you can't avoid concluding that they view it through a kind of geopolitical Looking Glass devoid of the quaint notion of sacrifice for a greater cause, where seeding inhospitable nations with the freedom we routinely take for advantage is somehow antithetical to our national security interests, and where manifest evil is demoted to the rank of moral malfeasance.

The premise of Mr. Beinart's editorial is America's notorious indifference to the past, something about which we've written extensively.  The left's complete lack of understanding of how belligerents are quelled and how peace is achieved is yet another paradox that will one day confront historians.  In the meantime, liberals are apparently content to be the champions of appeasement as well as overly invested in the fine art of diplomacy backed up by nothing more than parchment.

The Roots of Economic Insecurity

Given its singular nature, a photograph, formerly known as a snapshot, is the ultimate example of taking something out of context, because it distorts reality and provides false assurances about the future.  However, as we also know, distortions are often made in service to a political goal, and since the 2008 presidential election cycle is in full swing, the notion that America is on 'the wrong track' is making its quadrennial appearance.

A look at an editorial in today's New York Times by David Brooks provides an abundance of evidence, most of which is the product of media and popular culture, that the U.S. is on a downward trajectory.  Although the left-leaning media is a reliable mouthpiece for all that is wrong with America, every four years a more robust 'doom and gloom' industry seems to become reanimated, and it makes up in hysteria what it lacks in evidence.

Mr. Brooks takes us through the arguments and dispatches each with surgical precision.  However, if we examine these issues, most of which are economic, we must conclude that people are either ill-informed, gullible, or both.  Perhaps, but something else is lurking in those poll numbers of angst ridden Americans, and that is a kind of cultural immaturity.

Although we'll stipulate that the media has cornered the market on American doomsday scenarios, cultural expectations also play a vital role in defining economic security.  Thanks in large measure to the liberals, in the past quarter century an untoward sense of economic entitlement has crept into our cultural lexicon, one that abets class warfare and the politics of envy.

Recall that in the 50s success was defined as a 1,000 square foot home with two bedrooms and one bath, and one car.  Vacations were modest, savings rates were high, and the 'principle of parsimony' prevailed.  That principle, which was learned through painful experience, obliged people to find ways to cuts expenses, do more with less, and to bank the lessons learned to pass on to their children. 

However, the Baby Boomer generation, unchallenged by real hardship of any kind, nurtured a noxious sense of entitlement which translated into a standard of excess, from out-sized homes and lavish vacations (read, burdensome mortgages) to spending every penny earned.  That has bred an edgy sense of economic anxiety because this generation is slowly learning that 'more' is never 'enough.'

A corollary of that phenomenon is the degradation of humility, both in terms of our individual economic outlook and that of our nation.  Indeed, humility is yet virtue the Boomers cavalierly discarded because it didn't provide the immediate payoff they've come to demand of life.

We'll also throw into that ditch of discontent the notions of duty and obligation, sacrifice, and self-denial, because each has been depreciated due to the demands they exact which are seen as contrary to our modern sensibilities, the centerpiece of which are 'self-esteem' and 'feeling good about myself.'

So it's no surprise that most Americans feel we're on the wrong track, that life isn't fair, and that the future is dim.  But as these columns have argued, each generation imperceptibly redefines the cultural guidelines that calibrate our collective understanding of happiness, success, and the like. 

The lessons of previous generations are always imperfectly transfered.  However, if the transfer is so fundamentally flawed as to render them unintelligible, we have the kind of outcome we're currently experiencing--snapshots of an economy that are disparaged because of willful ignorance, coupled with individuals whose economic expectations are profoundly skewed.

It's an unsightly cultural mess, one that shows little sign of abating.

Health Care: Government Versus the Market Place

It's now clear that a debate over health care will be prominently featured in the 2008 election, and, as is the case with all policy issues, he who frames in the most cogent cultural terms has the inside track.  Since it faithfully tracks the media's left-leaning bent, yesterday's lengthy lead editorial in the New York Times is the perfect segue plot the debate's likely political trajectory.

As you work your way through it, you'll be struck by its assertions concerning the underlying causes of our supposed crisis, because they inadvertently illustrate some of the most compelling reasons to permit the market place to finish what it began some dozen years ago:  To wit, a pandemic softening of demand while allowing the system to create a multiplicity of hybrid health plans to suit individual needs.

To begin with, you may be surprised by the Times' conclusion that the "main driver of high medical spending here is our wealth," not the fact that we have the most advanced medical technology on earth, not to mention a pharmaceutical pipeline that continues to produce miracle medicines that maintain optimal health in ways that were fantasy just a decade ago.

But leave it to the Times to make the case that having the world's superlative system is somehow a deficit, which is what they do by arguing that we simply can't 'afford' it.  Curiously, after framing the issue with its uniquely biased parlance, they ask a thoughtfully selective question that effectively defines the contours of their solution: 

What can be done to lower both the high level of health care spending and its high rate of increase from year to year?

Note the absence of timely access and quality of care in that question.  By focusing exclusively on cost they are front-loading the debate, which presumes that 'universality' trumps access and quality.  That might well be the case in nations where the government controls everything from garbage collection to our choices in health care and where over half of income disappears into the black hole of government spending, but Americans correctly view an expanded government footprint with a mix of skepticism and concern for quality.

They've heard the anecdotal stories from Canada and Europe where routine referrals to specialists can take up to 18 weeks and elective hip surgery the better part of a year.  And, of course, there is a reason pharmaceuticals are less expensive in those countries--the government controls the price which means they effectively control the amount of new medicines that are brought to market.  At a cost of upwards of $1 billion per drug, it's no wonder the United States is the unqualified leader in producing the most efficacious medicines in the world.

The Times also seems surprised that we pay our physicians and hospitals more than other countries, and so they blithely recommend that we "tap into the vast flow of money sluicing through hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care facilities."  Without a scintilla of evidence the liberal sensibility sniffs out alleged greed and waste and gathers the usual suspects for a shakedown. 

In a momentary flash of insight, the editors stumble onto a market-based solution, which is consumer-driven plans, and which are already fundamentally realigning incentives and inhibiting unnecessary care.  However, they misguidedly conclude that since they aren't feasible for the poor they have no utility whatsoever.

After that dangerous brush with common sense they return to embrace liberalism's pipe dream:  a single payer system.  Their infatuation with such a system is understandable because, as they dream, it

...would let the government offset the price-setting strength of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, eliminate much of the waste due to a multiplicity of private insurance plans, and greatly cut administrative costs.

There is predictable, if naive allure in adopting such a system because it has such a sweeping appeal and is comforting, at least at the conceptual level, because of its unalloyed altruism.  But anyone who has studied economics knows that price controls are never a long-term solution because they skew incentives and create a wholly false impression of systemic fiscal viability.

Since we know that the Times and its brethren on the left have crafted a preordained conclusion, their arguments for some form of universal coverage are couched in a polemic of health care as a right, which conveniently recasts it as the legitimate charge of government to control. 

In truth, the solution to our 'crisis' is simple:  Dramatically reduce demand by continuing the practice of gradually migrating the real costs to consumers through plans that allow individuals to define their unique menu of services and associated pricing; and, use the same market-based template for those unable to afford care themselves--that is, they must pay at a level that inhibits a profligate use of limited resources while encouraging healthful lifestyle choices.

We don't have car insurance for oil changes, tune-ups and tires, only for catastrophic losses--the same should apply in health care.  The market place is already making corrections, now is not the time to usher in a government Trojan horse which will reduce choice and compromise quality.

Thanksgiving 2007

Although giving thanks would seem to be a reflexive instinct, in our age of arch egocentrism, it actually requires a special kind of magnanimity, a version of spiritual surrender.  Writing in the New York Sun, Mark Steyn provides his usual blend of caustic wit and historical depth to this uniquely American holiday, distinguishing our great Republic from the rest of the  world in the ways that matter most.

But to grasp a more meaningful understanding of thankfulness we're obliged to move from the locus of American exceptionalism back into the realm of our personal lives, because it's there that our individual universe exists, with family, friends, and work.

It's an irony of our times that the secularist character of our culture obliquely assures us that any measure of success we've achieved, or indeed, the fruits of a loving family, are of our own creation.  After all, we're the ones who march into the fray of the business world, whether as the small business owner, teacher, or captain of industry; and is it not our own selfless dedication to our spouses and children that has sustained our families during challenging times when lesser mortals would have conceded defeat?

Well, frankly, no.  While they have an understandable allure in the microcosmic world of the individual, self-congratulations are among the most ephemeral of human impulses and are of little utility as teaching instruments.  In contrast, perhaps the most primal human motivation is that which drives us to consider the existence of a being greater than ourselves-- not to diminish our human achievements--but to put them in a context that more correctly defines their genesis.

If we take a candid introspective view of ourselves, in particular during times when we were locked in a crucible that tested us in ways we never thought possible, and if we carefully trace our progress from the world of the forlorn to rejuvenation, a kind of mystical wonderment obtains, because we're at a loss as to how it transpired.

It's during those times that we might recall a paraphrase from Scripture-- God never places burdens on us without a corresponding measure of grace and wisdom, even if the latter are latent and only realized after the battle has subsided.

So as we enjoy this day with family or friends, we ought to give thanks, not only for the manifest benefits of living in nation where liberty is as omnipresent as air, but for the grace that God has so generously bestowed upon us, because it's that which will sustain us through every challenge we face, from work to the inevitable times when our faith in Him falters.

May God bless you and yours on this great day of Thanksgiving.

Hillary v. Rudy

We've all read that politics is not just a contact sport, but truly a blood sport, and during primary season it amounts to political cannibalism.  Maureen Dowd of the New York Times draws this into focus by describing the nascent internecine between Sens. Clinton and Obama.

Voters want to learn about differences, but not just policy differences.  Rather, those that inhabit the inner-reaches of the candidates' character and inform their principles, because it's there that issues of judgment and values reside.

One of the paramount issues surrounding presidential candidates is experience.  As we've noted, none of the Democratic candidates measure up when compared with modern examples such as Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, which means we've resorted to micro-analyzing their rather truncated resumes.  That leads to summarily embarrassing assertions such as that by Mr. Obama that he lived for four years in Southeast Asia as a child, which led him to conclude:

If you don’t understand these cultures then it’s very hard for you to make good foreign policy decisions.

Logic in reasoning can compel a suboptimal argument into the realm of the mediocre, but the non sequitur merely elicits laughter, and this one is a real thigh slapper.

As for Hillary, we all know about her co-presidency, but as Dowd herself notes, "Hillary cloaks her nepotism in feminism," and, for liberal mind, that constitutes political blasphemy.  Indeed, before her carpet-bagging senatorial race she had never held elective office, and she's never managed a business, or been responsible for anything other than being first-lady.

With national security rated as a primary concern for voters, people must wonder how the Clinton clan can keep a straight face as they tell the American people how her plans for "aggressive diplomacy" with Iran will produce results.  And, what if they don't?

There may come a day when the right woman--Republican or Democrat--appears on the political horizon, but absent someone of Margaret Thatcher's stature, it doesn't seem likely that voters will choose Hillary over Rudy, the case-hardened New York City prosecutor who doesn't flinch when confronted with a determined foe.  He may enter the diplomatic ring, but looming over his shoulder would be a formidable military option.

Would Hillary have the courage and conviction to force the likes of an Ahmadinejad into submission?

The Dems' 'Primary vs. General Election' Quandary

For an accurate glimpse inside the world of the Democratic psyche we've often looked to E.J. Dionne, because, our obvious differences with him aside, he's a credible and prescient observer of party politics.  His editorial in today's Washington Post is no exception as it's an illuminating snapshot of both the presidential candidates and a quick handicapping of their appeal to Democratic voters.

Indeed, Dionne ends his piece by asking the burning question for those who believe the Bush Administration has been the worst in history:

Who has the best chance of ending, and then transcending, the Bush era?

Unfortunately, after his analysis that includes a cursory review of the front-runners'  key strengths and objections, we're none the wiser in terms of whom he believes is the most likely to win the primary.  What is also absent from his analysis is how that individual might fare in a general election, and therein is the touchstone of truth.

That raises the issue of which candidate has a dual appeal capacity--that is, the one who can pull enough of the hard left and center while not creating a pre-general election record that effectively eliminates him, or her, as a credible candidate. 

As an aside, although, as Dionne notes, all three first-tier candidates are likable, they are also among the least qualified presidential candidates in modern history insofar as none has been a chief executive of anything; rather, they're have all held the most historically disqualifying office for the presidency, the U.S. Senate.

Returning to the primary and general election quandary, it appears as though Senator Clinton has the lead with her deft ability to not alienate vast numbers of left-wing voters and retaining a middle-America appeal.  She seems to have refined her political instincts with respect to her failed health care initiative of the 90s and, although she is avid taxer, by targeting the 'rich' and large corporations--which, of course, don't pay taxes--she's immunized herself from criticism by mainstream voters.

And, from the Republicans' perspective, she's their number one choice.  Having a ring-side seat at a Hillary-Rudy fight at the political equivalent of Madison Square Garden would be a real delight.

The Democrats & Iran

We've all seen the Democratic presidential candidates squirm when the issue of Iran is raised, and therefore it's instructive to attentively listen to them when they describe precisely how they would deal with that antagonistic regime.  If your only recollection of their plan is some variation of "aggressive diplomacy" (a State Department turn of wit), you haven't missed anything.

Robert Novak describes the Democrats' dilemma as something akin to walking an impossibly thin line between appearing weak and alienating the base by even hinting that a military response should be kept on the table.  It may be amusing to watch Sens. Clinton and Obama as their positions evolve, at times imperceptibly, at times laughably, but given the gravity of the situation it doesn't inspire confidence.

The only significant comment from last week's Democratic debate was when Senator Biden said that if President Bush "took the country to war without a vote of Congress...he should be impeached."

For both contrast and relief from this comic world we turn to an interview with Henry Kissinger published Saturday in Weekend Journal.  It's a somewhat lengthy piece, but well worth the time because it provides such a dramatic disparity between the Democrats' unserious approach to international affairs in a post-9/11 world and the Republicans, who bring a far more informed understanding of the magnitude of problems we're facing, in particular, with Iran.

As a former Secretary of State, Mr. Kissinger obviously sees an important role for diplomacy, however, as evidenced by the second sentence below, he doesn't fail to criticize the Bush Administration for not striking the proper balance:

What you mustn't do is to identify diplomacy with escalating [Western] concessions. [Right now we are] sliding into a position that we neither negotiate enough nor put out enough red lines.

It's that lack of balance in dealing with a belligerent such as Iran that can only lead to serious repercussions which could be avoided by using diplomacy concurrent to unambiguous consequences.  Given America's patterned avoidance of dealing with the radical Islamic threat, beginning in 1979 in Iran and culminating with the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, we can be assured that Iranian president Ahmadinejad is busy exploiting what he correctly sees as an institutional weakness.

As voters take inventory of the Democratic candidates' resolve in dealing with Iran, they should demand that they state unequivocally whether or not they would consider the military option if it meant preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

At this moment in the race it's entirely unclear whether any of them would answer in the affirmative, and when they are unable to even include it as an option, it's indicative of a fundamental incapacity to deal the world's most dangerous regimes.

Reagan Redux

The debate about the Age of Reagan has become fashionable parlor talk because the cognoscenti is convinced it's over.  Add to that choir of voices David Shribman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, who argues that we're in a period of transition between two eras. 

We all know the fundamentals of Reagan's ideals, smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation, a return to traditional values, a muscular foreign policy, and a sunny optimism about American exceptionalism.  But every era has a unique identity that includes the shadows of those before it, and, as Shribman also argues, we're still feeling the political penumbra of Mr. Reagan's legacy.

That aside, there is clear evidence that we are moving into a new era, one driven by a cultural agnosticism concerning some of our most hallowed traditions, which, in conjunction with our recent collision with Islamic radicalism, creates a panoply of challenges unprecedented in our history.

Perhaps the salient aspect of Reaganism was the deep and unapologetic love of our Republic he championed and which he contagiously spread to so many millions of Americans.  Although we are all prone to reshape history to fit our preferred memory, the 90s was a decade of optimism, of a rejuvenated faith in the strength of the individual, and the unqualified belief that America is the greatest nation on earth.

It's those elements that seem to have become culturally tarnished and in their stead we find a resilient divisiveness, with one facet of the country convinced that America should be chastised for its allegedly imperialist impulses and that the world's criticisms of us have the ring of truth.  All of that self-loathing has taken its toll as more people believe the nation is on the wrong track than in recent years, despite a powerful economy, including low unemployment, high net disposable income, and inflation in check.

That stated, this collective national angst seems to have infected Democrats far more than Republicans, in large part because liberals have more to gain by showcasing America's failings.  It's also true that Democrats are instinctively less proud of this nation because they seem to feed on its foibles and are wont to apologize for its missteps, rather than recognizing the tremendous good it's done for others.

It's impossible to know whether we can recapture Mr. Reagan's sure-footed sense of pride in this great Republic, but as we contemplate that we should remember that it's us that has changed, not our founding principles and values. 

If we can rekindle them and find a renewed sense of civic pride, we just might be able to convince those in the doldrums that we truly have more in common than might appear to be the case, and that, America's evident faults notwithstanding, this is, without qualification, the greatest nation on earth.

Equality of Outcomes Versus Opportunity

For many Democrats, charges of income inequality constitute a capital offense and the sentence typically calls for tax increases on the 'wealthy.'  We can lump these charges in with the left's understanding of high crimes and misdemeanors, which include being unfair, judgmental, or, perhaps the most damning, uncaring.

It's in that context that we link to the article in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal persuasively argues that income immobility is a political fiction fabricated from a cynical motivation by income redistributionists.  It adduces a study by the Treasury Department that tracked the incomes of nearly 100,000 individuals for ten years.  Readers can peruse the results, but they unequivocally demonstrate that upward mobility for those willing to work is analogous to an escalator--get on it and you'll go up.

Attentive observers of modern liberalism know that the left has conveniently confused our constitutional guarantee of 'equality of opportunity' with their political mandate for 'equality of outcomes.'  The former is a bedrock principle of our  Republic and a corollary of the freedoms we hold sacred because they are a multiplier that can exploit opportunity and enhance our chances of success.  The latter has the anachronistic taint of the failed socialist regimes that litter Eastern Europe; curiously, even the former Soviet bloc countries such as Estonia have disabused themselves of those economic manacles for their citizens--would that the political left in America could be so politically 'evolved.'

That segues us to the deeper, and therefore more telling motivation for the Democrats to lodge charges of income inequality, and that is political power.  Merely creating a level playing field by reducing taxes and regulations produces zero political payback and therefore zero votes.  However, if they can argue--which they do, despite an absence of evidence--that systemic racism or inveterate poverty are the primary causes of people's inability to succeed, they have their one-size-fits-all solution, which is higher taxes and regulation.

Besides being antithetical to our Constitution, it's a cynical view of human nature, one predicated on valuing people based on the color of their skin, not the content of their character, to quote The Rev. Martin Luther King. 

However, with a complicit media that instinctively does the left's bidding, it's a politically potent message that has real traction.  But the Treasury's new study gives the lie to this deeply held myth, and we can only hope more Americans come to understand how the Democrats use it to further their political goals.

The Case for Hillary

Although we're not fans of Camille Paglia, her piece today at Salon.com provides refreshing relief from the fawning mainstream media regarding Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

With a transparently exploitive motivation, Mrs. Clinton moved from Arkansas to New York and managed to survive charges of carpetbagging, due, in large measure, to an indifferent press that was so intoxicated with her they rewrote the rules of journalistic engagement. 

Now, as a presidential candidate, Clinton is once again proving that she has mastered the craven art of political calculation, asserting executive experience where none exists and excoriating the sacred feminist coda that insist that women succeed on their own merits, not in the powerful wake of their husbands.

However, all such sins are forgiven a priori because, once again demonstrating that power is no less addictive for women than men, Hillary is seen by most party leaders as the best hope for wresting the White House from the Republicans.  Yet Pagilia's criticisms of her are spot on, in particular the fact that she's never had the oratory or polemical potency of a real presidential candidate.  Indeed, her responses during the last debate seemed canned, pre-scripted, and, when tested in a heated exchange, acerbic.

But, for Republicans, she's the perfect gift, because she represents the quintessence of all we find distasteful about politics, the conniving, duplicitous, Janus-faced machinations that were the hallmark of the Clinton Administration are now about to be reprised.  The thought of another dual-presidency, this time with Bill padding around the White House, inserting himself (forgive the scabrous pun) into every policy decision, is more than most Americans care to suffer.

So, we frankly like the odds of a Clinton candidacy and look forward to the political ads dredging up the likes of Whitewater, Vince Foster, the Rose Law Firm billing records, the hundreds of FBI files found at the White House--it's a veritable mother-lode of incidents that call into question her veracity and her judgment, which make her eminently unsuited for the presidency of the United States.

A Winning Plan for the Democrats

Leadership, it has been observed, gets lonely as it becomes effective.  In that regard, no Democratic leader is at a loss for friends because they are all using the same dog-eared playbook.

Indeed, the approval ratings for this Democratic Congress are so low because they've not been able to advance their agenda, from higher taxes to a withdrawal in Iraq.  E.J. Dionne chronicles their dismal results in today's Washington Post, which can be traced to their politically insular policies that simply fail to resonate with most Americans.

He finishes his lamentation by asking:

Is there a handbook somewhere on how to be a courageous dealmaker?  Pelosi and Reid would love to read it.

Although oxymorons can be entertaining, the notion of a 'courageous dealmaker' fails to get out of the gates, or off the tarmac for that matter.  Courage, not unlike leadership, requires not only risk-taking, but an insightful sense of context and proportion.  Although the electorate has shown signs of tolerating a more robust role for government, they're fatigued with the left's recycled ideas, which in one way or another, always come down to raising taxes.

Moreover, a dealmaker is one who is as artful as astute in divining the opposition's motivations and goals, and therein lies the Democrats' quandary:  They seem utterly oblivious to the virtues of smaller government, less regulation, and lower taxes, not to mention a muscular military in a world of asymmetrical threats.  If they began with a template that reflected broad electoral support and wedded it with a modest agenda infused with traditional Democratic values, they would have a winning platform.

The so-called children's SCHIP legislation, which the Democrats larded with such  politically counter-intuitive ideas such as allowing states an upper-end qualifying limit of four times the federal poverty level--i.e., about $80,000--was a masterfully obtuse move that guaranteed a presidential veto.

As reported today at Politico, the Democrats' efforts to sway Congressional opinion on Iraq has been a pathetic failure as well.  That's because they insist on putting politics before winning the war, which was their blueprint for failure in Vietnam and one they are apparently intent upon using in Iraq as well.

Americans of all political stripes intuitively know leadership when they see it because it just reeks of genuineness, of forthrightfulness, of candor.  It is also refreshingly devoid of cynicism and defeatism, whether in economics or on the battlefield.  If the Democrats adopted a broad-based agenda of optimism and fiscal austerity in the mold of Jack Kennedy, they would find Americans flocking to their cause.

But given the performance of Congress, not to mention their largely uninspiring presidential candidates, that's unlikely to happen.

Veterans Day 2007

In part because our historical notions of sacrifice, duty, and obligation have become depreciated, with each passing year Veterans Day seems to suffer in our collective conscience.  Since its inception in 1919 by President Woodrow Wilson, and known then as Armistice Day, this was always a day of remembrance and thanks, beginning with the sacrifices America made in World War One, but subsequently as a way to honor veterans of all wars.

However, after World War Two, America's experience with and understanding of the nature of war has been on a downward trajectory because the Korean and Vietnam wars fell into a decidedly different category than the two previous wars of that century.  With the advent of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we've once again redefined the nature of warfare, with notions of pre-emption and asymmetrical warfare.

In the process, our understanding of war evolved from a battle between good and evil with the survival of the West in the balance, to one where good and evil are blurred in a fog of post-modern moral equivalence.  With the genesis of Islamic extremism we've moved to yet another level, which amounts to a battle of vastly different approaches to civilization itself, a kind of clash of ancient history with modernity.

Yet, one thing remains unchanged, and that is the vital role our military personnel have played in defending our Republic, and it's that we solemnly celebrate on this day.  When we reflect on the thousands of Americans in World War One, young men whose sacrifice in foreign lands can't be overestimated, who didn't return home and are now only distant memories, it simply staggers the imagination.

With one thousand WWI veterans dying each day, there is a legacy and sense of historical intimacy that is dying with them.  Along with their sacrifice there is an inestimable debt we owe them and the thousands like them in all our other wars, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We close as we have in years past, with a poignant poetic reminder of those sacrifices, written by Lt. Col. John McCrae, who suffered the death of a friend in May 1915, and translated his pain into these words:

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Playing Politics With Our Children

Seeking answers to perplexing questions concerning human behavior is a laudable pursuit, in part because we all have a vested interest in the insights that might be produced.  However, such pursuits are so exquisitely selective and isolate discrete behavioral relationships, we ought to be on guard for ulterior political motives.

Such is the case with a new study that allegedly belies previous research showing that teens who engage in sexual intercourse are more likely to be involved in delinquent behavior.  As reported in today's Washington Post, the second study used what the writer loftily characterized as "the powerful techniques of behavioral genetics," and noted that the second study concluded that the relationship is only correlational, not causal.  In fact, yet another study found that teens who engaged in sexual intercourse were less likely to be involved in dysfunctional activities.

Parsing the behavior of teenagers is certainly a daunting task as there are so many intervening variables and the 'chicken-and-egg' phenomenon can confuse even the most skilled researchers.  Their conclusions are translated into statistical values that calibrate them according to a confidence level which presumably have predictive value, but it's always with a plethora of caveats.  Further, no single study is conclusive, but rather provides either a greater or lesser confidence level for a certain theory.

But, beyond the world of behavioral science, which ostensibly posits a purity of motivation for illuminating the truth, lurks a more profound motivation, and that is justifying a political agenda.  Indeed, the secular humanists' sacred goal is to provide a cultural license for a behavioral template that matches their vision of a heaven on earth, in particular one sans both personal responsibilities or adverse consequences for imprudent behaivor.

Among other things, that includes a moral agnosticism concerning teenage sexual intercourse which leads them to litter the landscape with condoms and myths concerning their premise that it's a benign activity with no residual consequences.

In their view, the problem of teenage pregnancy is merely a technical speed bump solved by teaching our children proper condom etiquette, and, of course, when wedded with their perverse view that 14 year old girls shouldn't have to be burdened with notifying their parents when having an abortion, you've created a kind of perfect moral storm--the norming of historically aberrant behavior.

Whether it's the casualness with which they tinker with our children's fragile psychological constitutions or the smug way in which they claim a wholly unwarranted sense of certainty for their conclusions, it ought to alarm not only parents with teenagers but every American who cares about our children's future.

War & Appeasement

Close observers of our political culture can recite the many paradoxes in the modern liberal sensibility, such as their zealous protection of the darter snail but apparent moral indifference to the unborn human.

We add to that craven compendium a quote from Senator Joseph Lieberman who illuminated a curious contradiction concerning liberalism's approach to Iran's interference in Iraq.  We paraphrase from a report on yesterday's Special Report with Brit Hume:

The Democrats are more worried about President Bush's response to Iran's killing of U.S. soldiers than they are to the fact that Iran is killing U.S. soldiers.

Using cultural forensics, we begin by examining where in this equation the liberal mind might find political advantage.  Without considering whether an act of U.S. aggression is justified, the left reflexively preoccupies with the prospective response by our enemy to such an act.  That's a recipe for strategic disaster, and examples from Alexander's Battle of Granicus to virtually any of McClellan's in the Civil War provide lethal lessons.

Working our way deeper into the interior of the left's logic, Iran is a sovereign nation with the same complement of rights as the U.S., and in that regard, their pursuit of  nuclear weapons is no less legitimate than our possession of them.  That takes us into the core of their argument of the moral equivalence of nations, which itself reflects their most sacredly held view that one man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters--which is to say, our quaint, historical notions of good and evil were merely the convenient conventions of an imperialist impulse that the West used to exploit, oppress, and subjugate weaker nations.

That almost inevitably elevates appeasemnt to the level of a modern virtue and casts war not only as a failure to resolve our differences through diplomacy, but as a moral blight on our nation, neither of which is true.

These are arguments that leaves most sensible Americans dumbstruck, and, although many conservative Democrats such as Mr. Lieberman don't share it, there appears to be a growing cohort that does, and it makes for entertaining, if disturbing political theater.

Would Containment Work for Iran?

For academics and armchair pundits, handicapping rogue regimes with nuclear weapons is a seductive exercise because it involves high stakes risks without the real world consequences.  If they're correct they can showcase their prescience, if they're wrong they disappear into the thicket of anonymous, misguided soothsayers.  Gregory Schoblete, writing in RealClearPolitics.com performs just such an act in arguing that a nuclearized Iran is not the threat that neoconservatives such as Norman Prodhoretz believe they are.

Mr. Schoblete's argument turns on the notion that Iran's history of belligerence against the U.S. and its interests was through proxies, not its military, with the "political goal of reducing America's influence in the Middle East."  In effect, he is arguing that the regime's interests have been circumscribed by its limited resources and relatively narrow political goals.  This would place Iran under the rubric of an international nuisance, not a lethal Leviathan with nukes.

Although his argument has a certain feel of credibility, it misses a larger and more profound point:  While it does seem plausible to argue that the first act of a nascently nuclearized Iran would not--its prior threats notwithstanding--be to wipe Israel off the map, Mr. Schoblete seems to overlook the fact that the offensive options of the current Iranian regime, which amount to a serious but containable problem, are exponentially expanded for one with a nuclear weapon, and therein lies the rub.

For unstable regimes such as Iran--and we would place North Korea in the same category--the primary utility of a nuclear weapon is its effect as a force multiplier.  Indeed, it's the one weapon a despot can obtain that can elevate him to the status of a credible--that is, nefarious--player on the world stage, one that meaningfully advances his goal of leveling the strategic playing field with such overwhelmingly superior powers as the United States.

Therefore, although an Ahmadinejad with his hand on the nuclear switch is highly unlikely to flip it, he could extract regional concessions merely because, unlike, for instance, India, Iran is a volatile and unpredictable regime.  Further, although the club of nuclearized nations contains some less than stable regimes, unlike Iran, none has made public threats against the U.S. and its allies such as Israel.

It's because of those threats that a strategy of containment and aggressive diplomacy may not achieve the level of long-term stability the region so desperately needs.  If the international community's efforts to stop Iran from continuing its pursuit of a nuclear weapon fails, it should be prepared to set its program back a decade by a strategic bombing campaign.

The only thing worse than suffering the fallout from such an attack is facing an Ahmadinejad with a half dozen nukes.

Which Party Will Best Protect America?

With the 2008 election now a year away, both parties have ample opportunity to make their case to the American people.  For Republican candidates there is little ambiguity concerning their positions on domestic and foreign policy, but the same can't be said of Democrats.  We turn to the thoughtful legal authority, Alan Dershowitz, whose piece in today's Wall Street Journal is a timely political reminder that although common sense for many on the left is an endangered virtue, there is, in fact, a small cohort of Democrats in the mold of Truman, Kennedy, and Jackson.

Mr. Dershowitz sends his party a warning that unless its image as a pacifist, criminal-coddling, moral equivalence lot isn't substantially modified it runs the risk of once again having the keys to 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. pass to a Republican.

We've all sat in stunned disbelief as liberals railed against such measures as waterboarding for terrorists to extract information critical to our war against radical Islam.  We listened to them as they enlisted international law as the legal foundation for American foreign and domestic policy.  And, of course, we were obliged to listen to Senator John McCain's argument against all forms of torture, which are based on the erroneous notion that when our troops are captured they will be treated with all due respect if we foreswear harsh treatment as well. 

At the core of the left's acerbic criticism of tough measures is the same misguided instinct that makes them reticent to confront Iran.  For them the natural state of the universe is peaceful, and in their world of refined sophistication, the efficacy of aggression, even in defense of American principles and its interests, is viewed with equal measures of skepticism and disdain.

As John Bolton explains in his newly published book, Surrender is Not An Option, the culture at the State Department breeds a kind of conditional surrender when it comes to dealing with the likes of Iran.  As such it's a magnet for liberals for whom military intervention is anathema, is indeed, a sign of weakness, an admission that a negotiation failed.

There's an apt line in a movie about marketing mavens that features a boss telling his underlings that "someone will be closing this deal--it's either you or your customer," which is to say if you lose the sale, the customer is the one who closed it.  The same is true with any negotiation, but as Mr. Bolton argues, you must be willing to walk or you have no leverage.

Mr. Dershowitz's message is unlikely to sway many save those already in his court, and with the exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman, those are few indeed.  For reasons that defy our collective wisdom, the modern Democratic sensibility is cocooned in a universe meticulously fashioned from the stuff of fantasy:  That is, it minimizes lethal threats, it presupposes a wholly unwarranted sense of reasonableness in our enemy, and it gleefully hobbles our efforts to degrade his ability to attack us.

So, we welcome the debate about which party is best equipped to protect the American people, because we all know the answer.

Professor Bacevich & His Co-Conspirator Defeatists

Political pessimists are a curious lot until you realize their strategy is informed with a purposeful, if cynical calculation.  For a textbook example, we turn to Boston University history professor Andrew J. Bacevich, whose piece in today's L.A. Times could be a prototype for neophyte Machiavellians nationwide.

The professor avers that

War requires adherence to principles.  Once a conflict becomes an exercise in improvisation, it ceases to be meaningful.  It becomes the antithesis of war--killing without political purpose or moral justification.

Of course, he is referring to the U.S. war in Iraq, but the same charge could be leveled in 1916 after the Battle of Somme, which, with over one million casualties, was one of the bloodiest battles in history--it was also one of the more senseless.  Or, reversing historical course, we might examine General Washington's Battle of Brooklyn, which resulted in the British capturing New York City and from which Washington himself narrowly escaped.

Indeed, military history is replete with examples of improvisation which featured a tactically agile general responding to fluid circumstances, taking major losses but recovering to ultimately prevail.  In truth, we should question those who render summary judgments on the prosecution of a war while it's being waged because they either have a vested political interest in its outcome or they never supported its original cause, or, in the case of Bacevich and his ilk, both.

For them, realism stands as the only viable mechanism for dealing with radical Islam, and that means containment, or as he naively writes, "the United States must insulate itself against Islamic radicalism."  However, "erect[ing] effective defenses" in an age of asymmetrical warfare is something of strategic oxymoron because the enemy is, de facto, in our very midst.  Ironically, the best defenses are warrantless electronic surveillance, aggressive interrogations, and detainment of enemy combatants--all of which the Bacevichs of the world reject out-of-hand.

In the political dimensions they inhabit, President Bush's attempts to seed a rudimentary form of democracy in the Middle East is tantamount to "telling others how to live."  That's because in their post-modern view, there is no single system that is inherently superior, and if they generously concede that democratic principles are, in fact, superior, who are we to impose them on others?  That, of course, is precisely what we did in the aftermath of World War Two, vis a vis Japan and Germany, neither of which the academic elites believed were capable of becoming democratic nations.

Another of his nostrums argues that we should "Let Islam be Islam," effectively suggesting that they'll work out their differences with modernity on their own terms.  Yes, they began doing just that with the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and dozens of other subsequent attacks, culminating in the slaughter of 3,000 American innocents on 9/11.

Not unlike every major war the U.S. has fought, there is a reasonable expectation that we'll prevail in this one.  However, if we do, historians will indict the Democratic Party and its acolytes such as Bacevich as co-conspirator defeatists, because of the masterful way in which they undermined our efforts to win.

Diplomacy Redux

As Frank Rich writes in Sunday's New York Times, President Bush's 'saber rattling' on Iran notwithstanding, the Democratic presidential candidates find themselves in a precarious position.  With the notable exception of Senator Clinton, for whom Mr. Rich seems to reserve the harshest criticism, they have all staked out what amounts to positions of interminable diplomacy with Iran, something that doesn't seem to play well with mainstream Americans.

To begin our discussion, a reader commented concerning our column on Senator Barack Obama and the 'art' of diplomacy, effectively arguing that diplomacy does, in fact, play a key role in successfully degrading threats, adducing North Korea as an example.  We would agree, but only to the degree that conspicuously lurking in the foreground is a putative threat, one that the target of our diplomatic efforts finds convincing. 

The problem with the left's version of diplomacy is that's typically predicated on an a priori concession, whether of land, leverage, or consequences, which is guaranteed to be exploited by the adversary.  The case of North Korea is a prime example.  President Clinton entered into the hopelessly naive, bi-lateral, "Agreed Framework," which Kim Jong Il manipulated to his advantage.  He not only didn't comply with the dictates of the agreement, he clandestinely worked to develop a nuclear weapon.

President Bush insisted on 6-party talks and leveraged China to take an active role.  One of the key threats was Japan, which stated it would seriously consider its own defensive nuclear program if North Korea didn't agree to dismantle its program.  Add to that equation the fact that Mr. Bush included that despotic regime in his "Axis of Evil" speech, and when combined with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and elimination of Saddam Hussein, it clearly got Kim Jong Il's attention.  The same can be said of Libya's Qaddafi.

We turn now to Mr. Rich and his lamentation of the diffident Democratic field of candidates.  Evidence in the modern liberal of an appeasement gene is incontestable, but Rich makes the argument even more plausible.  Indeed, he calls the Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution a "malevolent bill," because, according to the liberal play-book, it's a prelude to President Bush's invasion of Iran.

In the intellectually hermetic world of Rich and his liberal brethren, the notion of confronting the likes of Ahmadinejad whose regime has been sending financial aid and military means to Iraq, which has been directly linked to the deaths of American soldiers, is simply unconscionable.

Diplomacy clearly has a role in dealing with rogue nations, but only when meaningful consequences for non-compliance are transparent.  Therefore, when Democrats such as Senator Obama, talk about "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran, but rule out a military strike, we can be assured Ahmadinejad is four-square behind his candidacy.

Senator Obama & the 'Art' of Diplomacy

Diplomacy and negotiations with dictators is more than merely an oxymoron it's an embarrassment.  The off-the-shelf example, of course, is the 1938 Munich Agreement, but a more sweeping comment on that genus of naivete is that historical differences between nations advanced far more expeditiously towards a real resolution on the battlefield than they do today, and that, as history attests, renders the modern diplomatic kabuki dance superfluous.

Yet, as today's article in the New York Times makes unequivocally clear, our elite intelligentsia, such as Senator Barack Obama, are apparently immune from the lessons of history.  In the apposite example of Iran, a belligerent nation that has spent decades demonstrating its enmity towards the West generally, and the United States in particular, we have the perfect foil for Mr. Obama, who is so thoroughly convinced of his skills on the international stage that he states he will "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy" with that rogue regime.

Confusing cause and effect in the behavior of such nations is a common if dangerous phenomenon and diplomats excel in this area as few others could.  Indeed, Mr. Obama hews closely to the diplomatic paradigm with his assertion that

...Iran's support for military groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush Administration's policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

That is oblique code for the fact that the left's non-interventionist instinct--read adamant appeasement--reflexively apologizes for the U.S. invasion of Iraq on the premise that it was an unjustified war.  So, it's that action that has angered the Iranians, which itself recalls the hard left's post-9/11 analysis that America caused the attack because of who we are, or our alleged indifference to the world outside our doors, or our policy in the Middle East--the list is endless but is always predicated on a self-criticism, not the pre-emptively aggressive posture of the radical Islamists.

Obama goes on in the Times interview to say he would offer Iran assurances that the U.S. isn't "hellbent upon regime change just for the sake of regime change, but expects changes in behavior."  A brilliant stroke of Clintonian wit, but he should be asked why regime change in Iran is not a worthy goal to pursue?

The article also mentions Senator Clinton's more centrist approach and noted that Democrats felt she was "too hawkish...for [her vote] for a non-binding resolution describing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran as a terrorist organization."  We must remember that for many liberals merely talking about the possibility of an aggressive measure is tantamount to being too hawkish.  It's clear that's a charge that a President Obama would never have to face.

It's an irony of our modern age, where we're routinely lectured about the virtues of civilized interactions with those with whom we disagree, that diplomacy has become a feckless proxy for war.  Indeed, if the left had its way war itself would be proscribed because in their reading of history it never resolved anything.

It's a curious reading of events, but one sensible Americans should remember as Mr. Obama and the rest of the Democratic field of candidates tries to convince them that they have perfected the 'art' of diplomacy.