WASHINGTON DC - Ending weeks of speculation and rumors, President-Elect Barack Obama today named Bill Clinton to join his incoming administration as President of the United States, where he will head the federal government’s executive branch
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/obama-names-bill-clinton-to-president-post.html
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
CNO at NAVSEA
The CNO was at NAVSEA today, giving awards to several NAVSEA employees who helped with the repair and refurbishment of the USS George Washington after it sustained $70 million in damage due to a fire.
Of course, if someone had not been smoking in an area where there was 115 gallons of flammable refrigerant compressor oil, the fire may not have happened. So don't smoke, kids!
In other news, it looks like President-elect Obama will be keeping Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Good move. Maybe Obama's eyes have been opened to see a dangerous world and it helps to have good, experienced people to help you.
Of course, if someone had not been smoking in an area where there was 115 gallons of flammable refrigerant compressor oil, the fire may not have happened. So don't smoke, kids!
In other news, it looks like President-elect Obama will be keeping Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Good move. Maybe Obama's eyes have been opened to see a dangerous world and it helps to have good, experienced people to help you.
Monday, November 24, 2008
David French on Anti-intellectualism
From National Review online:
I've been following the ongoing debate over conservatives, populism, and our supposed anti-intellectualism with some interest. David Brooks has been banging this drum for some time, and so have many others. Yet I think they're missing something important: It's not that conservatives disdain "education" or "intellectuals," it's more that we now know — after more than 30 years of confronting the modern university — that the intellectual emperor has no clothes.
In other words, it is not the idea of education that repels heartland conservatives, it is the type of education that we know our elites receive. How "elite" is a social class that all too often embraces the postmodernism and intolerance of the modern academy? How "elite" is a cultural class that catches the vapors at a Larry Summers speech, embraces academic departments that promulgate grotesquely historically flawed "deconstructions" of the American story, and drips with contempt for traditional values — not because those values have been tried and found wanting but because those values are seen as the primary obstacle to progressive cultural change.
It is no doubt a problem that professionals are rejecting Republicans by lopsided margins. But we must ask, is it because conservatives reject education? Or is it because professionals are educated to reject conservatives?
To be sure, some subset of the conservative movement does seem to find policy arguments much more alluring when made with a regional accent, and there is no doubt that elite-bashing can be simple-minded and extreme, but the idea that conservative movement as a whole is turning its back on "book-learnin'" is just silly. We revere Churchill and Lincoln just as much as we ever did. The academy — and, consequently, our educated "elite" — do not.
The problem is largely cultural, not political. The university system as a whole is culturally dominated by a system of thought that not only rejects conservatism (especially social conservatism), it considers it not even worth discussion. Conservatives can nominate attractive and urbane candidates all they want, but unless their ideas change, they will see increasing problems winning over an "educated" class that has spent year after year hearing only half the story.
I've been following the ongoing debate over conservatives, populism, and our supposed anti-intellectualism with some interest. David Brooks has been banging this drum for some time, and so have many others. Yet I think they're missing something important: It's not that conservatives disdain "education" or "intellectuals," it's more that we now know — after more than 30 years of confronting the modern university — that the intellectual emperor has no clothes.
In other words, it is not the idea of education that repels heartland conservatives, it is the type of education that we know our elites receive. How "elite" is a social class that all too often embraces the postmodernism and intolerance of the modern academy? How "elite" is a cultural class that catches the vapors at a Larry Summers speech, embraces academic departments that promulgate grotesquely historically flawed "deconstructions" of the American story, and drips with contempt for traditional values — not because those values have been tried and found wanting but because those values are seen as the primary obstacle to progressive cultural change.
It is no doubt a problem that professionals are rejecting Republicans by lopsided margins. But we must ask, is it because conservatives reject education? Or is it because professionals are educated to reject conservatives?
To be sure, some subset of the conservative movement does seem to find policy arguments much more alluring when made with a regional accent, and there is no doubt that elite-bashing can be simple-minded and extreme, but the idea that conservative movement as a whole is turning its back on "book-learnin'" is just silly. We revere Churchill and Lincoln just as much as we ever did. The academy — and, consequently, our educated "elite" — do not.
The problem is largely cultural, not political. The university system as a whole is culturally dominated by a system of thought that not only rejects conservatism (especially social conservatism), it considers it not even worth discussion. Conservatives can nominate attractive and urbane candidates all they want, but unless their ideas change, they will see increasing problems winning over an "educated" class that has spent year after year hearing only half the story.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Weekend at the cabin
We are currently up at the cabin with our friends the E's. We went to see the new James Bond movie and also went to Swallow Falls State Park. The Bond movie had good action, but the plot was a mess, involving a corporate tycoon taking over the Bolivian water supply. Why don't more movies show real global enemies, namely Islamic terrorists? Maybe more movies like "The Kingdom?" There was an interesting story last week involving a hostage rescue in Afghanistan by NAVY seals. The SEALS helicoptered in and rescued an American businessman, taking the hostage-takers by surprise. That would be a good movie.
Another movie that I'd like to see is "Slumdog Millionaire"--it involves a poor Indian man who wins a lot of money on a TV game show. It's a subject that I am obviously interested in. :)
Another movie that I'd like to see is "Slumdog Millionaire"--it involves a poor Indian man who wins a lot of money on a TV game show. It's a subject that I am obviously interested in. :)
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Opera Saturday
Celebrated D.'s birthday by going to see a simulcast of "Doctor Atomic" on Saturday. Truly a remarkable opera--it has history, poetry, suspense, drama, and of course great music.
I was very impressed with Sasha Cooke as Kitty Oppeneimer. Outstanding singer, and if I may say so, sexy.
I was very impressed with Sasha Cooke as Kitty Oppeneimer. Outstanding singer, and if I may say so, sexy.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Steven den Beste's analysis
Good morning-after anaylsis from Steven den Beste:
Not the end of the world
It's easy to let yourself go in despair and start thinking things like "We are well-and-truly fucked" or "This is the worst of all possible outcomes". But it isn't true.
I think this election is going to be a "coming of age" moment for a lot of people. They say, "Be careful what you wish for" and a lot of people got their wish yesterday.
And now they're bound to be disappointed. Not even Jesus could satisfy all the expectations of Obama's most vocal supporters, or fulfill all the promises Obama has made.
I think Obama is going to turn out to be the worst president since Carter, and for the same reason: good intentions do not guarantee good results. Idealists often stub their toes on the wayward rocks of reality, and fall on their faces. And the world doesn't respond to benign behavior benignly.
But there's another reason why: Obama has been hiding his light under a basket. A lot of people bought a pig in a poke today, and now they're going to find out what they bought. Obama isn't what most of them think he is. The intoxication of the cult will wear off, leaving a monumental hangover.
And four years from now they'll be older and much wiser.
A lot of bad things are going to happen during this term. But I don't think that this is an irreversible catastrophe for the union. I've lived long enough to absorb this basic truth: the US is too large and too strong to destroy in just 4 years. Or even in 8. We survived 6 years of Nixon. We survived 4 years of Carter. We even survived 8 years of Clinton, God alone knows how.
The President of the United States is the most powerful political figure in the world, but as national executives go his powers are actually quite restricted. Obama will become President, but he won't be dictator or king, let alone deity. He still has to work with the House and the Senate, and he still has to live within Constitutional restrictions, and with a judiciary that he mostly didn't appoint.
The main reason this will be a "coming of age" moment is that now Obama and the Democrats have to put up or shut up. Obama got elected by making himself a blank slate, with vapid promises about "hope" and "change" -- but now he actually has to do something. Now he has to reveal his true agenda. And with the Democrats also having a majority in both chambers of Congress, now the Democrats really have to lead. And they're not going to do a very good job of it. It's going to be amusing to watch.
And the people who fell for the demagoguery will learn an invaluable lesson.
Oh, the Democrats try to blame failure on Republican filibusters, of which there will be many. But that's always been a factor in our system, and many people believe it's an important check on government excess. The tradition in the Senate is that it is supposed to be a buffer against transient political fads, and the filibuster is a major part of that.
If the Democrats go all in, and change the filibuster rule, then they'll have truly seized the nettle with both hands and won't have any excuses any longer. That's why they won't do it. It's their last fig-leaf. But even with the filibuster rule in place, they'll be stuck trying to deliver now on all the promises implied, or inferred, during this election. The Republicans can only filibuster on bills the Democrats have already proposed.
And it ain't possible for the Democrats to deliver what's been promised. Gonna be a hell of a lot of disillusioned lefties out there. A lot of people who felt they were deceived. A lot of people who will eventually realize that the Obama campaign was something of a cult.
Disillusionment will turn to a feeling of betrayal. And that will, in turn, convert to anger.
In the mean time, Obama and Congressional Democrats will do things that cause harm, but very little of it will be irreversible.
I would have enjoyed watching lefty heads explode if McCain had won. But we're going to see lefty heads exploding anyway; it's just going to take longer.
In the mean time, those of us who didn't want Obama to be president have to accept that he is. And let's not give in to the kind of paranoid fever dreams that have consumed the left for the last 8 years. Let us collectively take a vow tonight: no "Obama derangement syndrome". Obama is a politician. He isn't the devil incarnate.
So what are the good sides of what just happened?
1. It is no longer possible for anyone to deny that the MSM is heavily biased. The MSM have been biased for decades but managed an illusion of fairness. That is no longer possible; the MSM have squandered their credibility during this campaign. They'll never get that credibility back again.
2. Since the Democrats got nearly everything they hoped for in this campaign, they'll have no excuses and will have to produce. They'll have to reveal their true agenda -- or else make clear that they don't really have any beyond gaining power.
3. Every few decades the American people have to be reminded that peace only comes with strength. The next four years will be this generation's lesson.
Now, a few predictions for the next four years:
1. Obama's "hold out your hand to everyone" foreign policy is going to be a catastrophe. They'll love it in Europe. They're probably laughing their heads off about it in the middle east already.
2. The US hasn't suffered a terrorist attack by al Qaeda since 9/11, but we'll get at least one during Obama's term.
3. We're going to lose in Afghanistan.
4. Iran will get nuclear weapons. There will be nuclear war between Iran and Israel. (This is the only irreversibly terrible thing I see upcoming, and it's very bad indeed.)
5. There will eventually be a press backlash against Obama which will make their treatment of Bush look mild. Partly that's going to be because Obama is going to disappoint them just as much as all his other supporters. Partly it will be the MSM desperately trying to regain its own credibility, by trying to show that they're not in his tank any longer. And because of that they are eventually going to do the reporting they should have done during this campaign, about Obama's less-than-savory friends, and about voter fraud, and about illegal fund-raising, and about a lot of other things.
and 6. Obama will not be re-elected in 2012. He may even end up doing an LBJ and not even running again.
One last thing: I'm not saying I'm happy with this outcome. I would much rather have had McCain win. But this is not the end of the world, or the end of this nation. We've survived much worse.
And now we need to show the lefties how to lose. Our mission for the next four years is to be in opposition without becoming deranged.
UPDATE: One other good thing: no one will be spinning grand conspiracy theories about this administration's Vice President being an evil, conniving genius who is the true power behind the throne.
Not the end of the world
It's easy to let yourself go in despair and start thinking things like "We are well-and-truly fucked" or "This is the worst of all possible outcomes". But it isn't true.
I think this election is going to be a "coming of age" moment for a lot of people. They say, "Be careful what you wish for" and a lot of people got their wish yesterday.
And now they're bound to be disappointed. Not even Jesus could satisfy all the expectations of Obama's most vocal supporters, or fulfill all the promises Obama has made.
I think Obama is going to turn out to be the worst president since Carter, and for the same reason: good intentions do not guarantee good results. Idealists often stub their toes on the wayward rocks of reality, and fall on their faces. And the world doesn't respond to benign behavior benignly.
But there's another reason why: Obama has been hiding his light under a basket. A lot of people bought a pig in a poke today, and now they're going to find out what they bought. Obama isn't what most of them think he is. The intoxication of the cult will wear off, leaving a monumental hangover.
And four years from now they'll be older and much wiser.
A lot of bad things are going to happen during this term. But I don't think that this is an irreversible catastrophe for the union. I've lived long enough to absorb this basic truth: the US is too large and too strong to destroy in just 4 years. Or even in 8. We survived 6 years of Nixon. We survived 4 years of Carter. We even survived 8 years of Clinton, God alone knows how.
The President of the United States is the most powerful political figure in the world, but as national executives go his powers are actually quite restricted. Obama will become President, but he won't be dictator or king, let alone deity. He still has to work with the House and the Senate, and he still has to live within Constitutional restrictions, and with a judiciary that he mostly didn't appoint.
The main reason this will be a "coming of age" moment is that now Obama and the Democrats have to put up or shut up. Obama got elected by making himself a blank slate, with vapid promises about "hope" and "change" -- but now he actually has to do something. Now he has to reveal his true agenda. And with the Democrats also having a majority in both chambers of Congress, now the Democrats really have to lead. And they're not going to do a very good job of it. It's going to be amusing to watch.
And the people who fell for the demagoguery will learn an invaluable lesson.
Oh, the Democrats try to blame failure on Republican filibusters, of which there will be many. But that's always been a factor in our system, and many people believe it's an important check on government excess. The tradition in the Senate is that it is supposed to be a buffer against transient political fads, and the filibuster is a major part of that.
If the Democrats go all in, and change the filibuster rule, then they'll have truly seized the nettle with both hands and won't have any excuses any longer. That's why they won't do it. It's their last fig-leaf. But even with the filibuster rule in place, they'll be stuck trying to deliver now on all the promises implied, or inferred, during this election. The Republicans can only filibuster on bills the Democrats have already proposed.
And it ain't possible for the Democrats to deliver what's been promised. Gonna be a hell of a lot of disillusioned lefties out there. A lot of people who felt they were deceived. A lot of people who will eventually realize that the Obama campaign was something of a cult.
Disillusionment will turn to a feeling of betrayal. And that will, in turn, convert to anger.
In the mean time, Obama and Congressional Democrats will do things that cause harm, but very little of it will be irreversible.
I would have enjoyed watching lefty heads explode if McCain had won. But we're going to see lefty heads exploding anyway; it's just going to take longer.
In the mean time, those of us who didn't want Obama to be president have to accept that he is. And let's not give in to the kind of paranoid fever dreams that have consumed the left for the last 8 years. Let us collectively take a vow tonight: no "Obama derangement syndrome". Obama is a politician. He isn't the devil incarnate.
So what are the good sides of what just happened?
1. It is no longer possible for anyone to deny that the MSM is heavily biased. The MSM have been biased for decades but managed an illusion of fairness. That is no longer possible; the MSM have squandered their credibility during this campaign. They'll never get that credibility back again.
2. Since the Democrats got nearly everything they hoped for in this campaign, they'll have no excuses and will have to produce. They'll have to reveal their true agenda -- or else make clear that they don't really have any beyond gaining power.
3. Every few decades the American people have to be reminded that peace only comes with strength. The next four years will be this generation's lesson.
Now, a few predictions for the next four years:
1. Obama's "hold out your hand to everyone" foreign policy is going to be a catastrophe. They'll love it in Europe. They're probably laughing their heads off about it in the middle east already.
2. The US hasn't suffered a terrorist attack by al Qaeda since 9/11, but we'll get at least one during Obama's term.
3. We're going to lose in Afghanistan.
4. Iran will get nuclear weapons. There will be nuclear war between Iran and Israel. (This is the only irreversibly terrible thing I see upcoming, and it's very bad indeed.)
5. There will eventually be a press backlash against Obama which will make their treatment of Bush look mild. Partly that's going to be because Obama is going to disappoint them just as much as all his other supporters. Partly it will be the MSM desperately trying to regain its own credibility, by trying to show that they're not in his tank any longer. And because of that they are eventually going to do the reporting they should have done during this campaign, about Obama's less-than-savory friends, and about voter fraud, and about illegal fund-raising, and about a lot of other things.
and 6. Obama will not be re-elected in 2012. He may even end up doing an LBJ and not even running again.
One last thing: I'm not saying I'm happy with this outcome. I would much rather have had McCain win. But this is not the end of the world, or the end of this nation. We've survived much worse.
And now we need to show the lefties how to lose. Our mission for the next four years is to be in opposition without becoming deranged.
UPDATE: One other good thing: no one will be spinning grand conspiracy theories about this administration's Vice President being an evil, conniving genius who is the true power behind the throne.
Congratulations to Senator Obama
on his historic election. Let's hope he governs as a moderate and not as a far-left liberal.
I think President Obama will quickly discover that our enemies are still out there, and his gauzy talk about talking with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela will quickly become inoperative. He will quickly discover that withdrawing 10,000 troops a month from Iraq may not be prudent or wise. He will discover that you just can't close Guantanamo and let our enemies go free. He will, as Joe Biden predicted, face an international crisis within his first six months. I hope he keeps Secretary of Defense Gates on.
And of course, Senate Republicans should support him when they can, and filibuster like H*ll when Obama and congressional liberals try to pass some of the more hare-brained items on their agenda.
I think President Obama will quickly discover that our enemies are still out there, and his gauzy talk about talking with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela will quickly become inoperative. He will quickly discover that withdrawing 10,000 troops a month from Iraq may not be prudent or wise. He will discover that you just can't close Guantanamo and let our enemies go free. He will, as Joe Biden predicted, face an international crisis within his first six months. I hope he keeps Secretary of Defense Gates on.
And of course, Senate Republicans should support him when they can, and filibuster like H*ll when Obama and congressional liberals try to pass some of the more hare-brained items on their agenda.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Quin Hilyer nails it
Quin Hilyer of the American Spectator nails it:
There is something special about this country. The United States is exceptional. We are blessed by the good Lord, and in turn we have done more, far more, than any other people to spread freedom across the globe, and prosperity across the globe, and human rights across this great good Earth. We are a particularly good people -- and John McCain understands all this and believes it with every fiber of his being, down to his very marrow, in a way that is deeply spiritual in nature. There is nothing fake about McCain's belief in American Exceptionalism. His belief in this is as genuine, and as deeply felt, as is a son's love for his father. He will defend this country, fight for this country, with every last breath in his body.
And McCain has a record of making the right calls, again and again, when it comes to securing the American national interest around the world. He was right to back Ronald Reagan to the hilt in the greatest foreign challenge of the past 60 years, namely the victorious effort to win the Cold War despite the strenuous and at times vicious opposition of the American Left. But he was right to oppose Reagan when Reagan, with all good intentions, decided to station Marines in Lebanon. McCain broke with his entire party, and warned that the Marines would be sitting ducks, and voted against the deployment. Tragically, McCain was right: More than 200 Americans died in Lebanon in a suicide truck bombing about a month after McCain's warning.
McCain was right to support -- and Joe Biden was wrong to oppose -- the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein in 1991. McCain was right to support intervention in Kosovo later that decade: It worked. He was right to support a stronger military and greater numbers of personnel when Bill Clinton was cutting it. He was right to fight against wasteful weapons systems, and against corruption in military contracting. He was right to fight a specific boondoggle involving an Air Force tanker; he brought corruption to light (the perpetrators both in the Air Force and at the contractor went to jail) and saved the public $6 billion.
McCain was right to say that Saddam Hussein could be overthrown fairly quickly, with little loss of American life. He was right to say that Hussein was a terrible threat. But he was right, very early on, well before anybody else in the Senate, to say that it would take more troops and a different strategy to secure the peace after we had won the war. He broke with President Bush to say so, way back in 2003, and he was right.
John McCain has suffered for his country in a way only a tiny slice of the population ever has. The story is well known -- not just that he suffered in Vietcong captivity, but that he turned down early release in a profound expression of solidarity with his fellow prisoners. Yet McCain had the grace, when the time was right, to hold out an olive branch to the Vietnamese a couple of decades later when they showed a movement toward greater economic freedom.
John McCain is committed to reaching beyond party labels. Whether always right or wrong to do so, he really cares about doing what he thinks is right no matter whose political ox is gored. Barack Obama may talk a bipartisan game, but he never has actually played on that field. The reality, meanwhile, is that sometimes it helps conservative ends to work with people from the other party. Ronald Reagan knew this. Ronald Reagan knew how to bring Democratic congressmen his way -- for tax cuts and for defense improvements and for spending discipline. McCain, because of his long record of bipartisanship, can do likewise -- especially when it comes to spending. McCain has promised to veto any bill, any bill at all, that contains purely local-interest earmarks -- and with a veto, he can make it stick, even against a Democratic Congress. Eventually, once he makes it stick a few times, he can start bringing Democratic "Blue Dogs" his way on spending. Just watch it happen: Yes, it will.
This bears repeating: No candidate for president since Barry Goldwater has been as committed to spending discipline across the board as John McCain is. His entire record for 25 years gives evidence of that reality. Reagan came close to the Goldwater/McCain level of commitment, but McCain has kept up that fight, a lonely fight, for a quarter century. For limited-government conservatives -- actually, that's a redundancy -- this McCainite stubbornness should be cause for far deeper appreciation than it has received.
McCain also has the right instincts on the key issue of the judiciary. It may not be at the top of his list of importance, but he does, unambiguously, favor the appointment of judges who carefully construe the actual text of the Constitution and laws and are willing to be bound by those texts no matter what their own policy preferences. McCain's judicial nominees would be far more likely, by light years, than would be Obama's nominees, to maintain the Constitution's balance between national and state governments, and its restrictions on Congress's powers. His judges would be less likely to make decisions based on their preferred policy results -- but, because the Constitution is written as it is, a close adherence to the text would result in less hostility to religion, less hostility to honest police action, less hostility to private property, and less hostility to local community standards than would the radically liberal judges of the sort Obama favors.
Also, John McCain is an individualist. He believes in private action. He believes that individuals can live their lives responsibly without government acting as nanny and overseer and ultimate decision-maker on virtually every aspect of daily life. McCain trusts people with their own hard-earned money. McCain has never voted for a tax hike. McCain has supported almost every important tax-cut proposal for 25 years. Even on the two cuts he opposed, he stringently has supported keeping the lower level once it was set: It is a point of honor to him that American taxpayers should be able to count on lower tax rates once they are established and once they have begun to make plans based on those rates. McCain particularly understands that investors -- pensioners, 401(k) holders, homeowners -- are the engine of the economy, and that American investors right now are at a huge disadvantage to the entire rest of the developed world because our investment taxes are higher. McCain will cut investment taxes, and that's a very good thing for everybody.
Finally, there can be no doubt, none whatsoever, that John McCain will brook no corruption in his administration. Woe be to the appointee who would risk sullying McCain's vaunted honor by crooked deals and self-serving actions. It is likely that no administration in history will be so concerned with maintaining high ethical standards as a McCain administration would. And it will be blessed relief to have an administration where not even a hint of scandal will be even whispered by honest observers.
So there you have it: John McCain as a patriot firmly rooted in the American traditions of free enterprise, limited government, strong defense, personal accountability, and a decent respect for the cultural standards of the broad middle of the American public. Those are the constituent elements of American exceptionalism -- and to his great credit, John McCain is an American exceptionalist, and an exceptional American.
There is something special about this country. The United States is exceptional. We are blessed by the good Lord, and in turn we have done more, far more, than any other people to spread freedom across the globe, and prosperity across the globe, and human rights across this great good Earth. We are a particularly good people -- and John McCain understands all this and believes it with every fiber of his being, down to his very marrow, in a way that is deeply spiritual in nature. There is nothing fake about McCain's belief in American Exceptionalism. His belief in this is as genuine, and as deeply felt, as is a son's love for his father. He will defend this country, fight for this country, with every last breath in his body.
And McCain has a record of making the right calls, again and again, when it comes to securing the American national interest around the world. He was right to back Ronald Reagan to the hilt in the greatest foreign challenge of the past 60 years, namely the victorious effort to win the Cold War despite the strenuous and at times vicious opposition of the American Left. But he was right to oppose Reagan when Reagan, with all good intentions, decided to station Marines in Lebanon. McCain broke with his entire party, and warned that the Marines would be sitting ducks, and voted against the deployment. Tragically, McCain was right: More than 200 Americans died in Lebanon in a suicide truck bombing about a month after McCain's warning.
McCain was right to support -- and Joe Biden was wrong to oppose -- the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein in 1991. McCain was right to support intervention in Kosovo later that decade: It worked. He was right to support a stronger military and greater numbers of personnel when Bill Clinton was cutting it. He was right to fight against wasteful weapons systems, and against corruption in military contracting. He was right to fight a specific boondoggle involving an Air Force tanker; he brought corruption to light (the perpetrators both in the Air Force and at the contractor went to jail) and saved the public $6 billion.
McCain was right to say that Saddam Hussein could be overthrown fairly quickly, with little loss of American life. He was right to say that Hussein was a terrible threat. But he was right, very early on, well before anybody else in the Senate, to say that it would take more troops and a different strategy to secure the peace after we had won the war. He broke with President Bush to say so, way back in 2003, and he was right.
John McCain has suffered for his country in a way only a tiny slice of the population ever has. The story is well known -- not just that he suffered in Vietcong captivity, but that he turned down early release in a profound expression of solidarity with his fellow prisoners. Yet McCain had the grace, when the time was right, to hold out an olive branch to the Vietnamese a couple of decades later when they showed a movement toward greater economic freedom.
John McCain is committed to reaching beyond party labels. Whether always right or wrong to do so, he really cares about doing what he thinks is right no matter whose political ox is gored. Barack Obama may talk a bipartisan game, but he never has actually played on that field. The reality, meanwhile, is that sometimes it helps conservative ends to work with people from the other party. Ronald Reagan knew this. Ronald Reagan knew how to bring Democratic congressmen his way -- for tax cuts and for defense improvements and for spending discipline. McCain, because of his long record of bipartisanship, can do likewise -- especially when it comes to spending. McCain has promised to veto any bill, any bill at all, that contains purely local-interest earmarks -- and with a veto, he can make it stick, even against a Democratic Congress. Eventually, once he makes it stick a few times, he can start bringing Democratic "Blue Dogs" his way on spending. Just watch it happen: Yes, it will.
This bears repeating: No candidate for president since Barry Goldwater has been as committed to spending discipline across the board as John McCain is. His entire record for 25 years gives evidence of that reality. Reagan came close to the Goldwater/McCain level of commitment, but McCain has kept up that fight, a lonely fight, for a quarter century. For limited-government conservatives -- actually, that's a redundancy -- this McCainite stubbornness should be cause for far deeper appreciation than it has received.
McCain also has the right instincts on the key issue of the judiciary. It may not be at the top of his list of importance, but he does, unambiguously, favor the appointment of judges who carefully construe the actual text of the Constitution and laws and are willing to be bound by those texts no matter what their own policy preferences. McCain's judicial nominees would be far more likely, by light years, than would be Obama's nominees, to maintain the Constitution's balance between national and state governments, and its restrictions on Congress's powers. His judges would be less likely to make decisions based on their preferred policy results -- but, because the Constitution is written as it is, a close adherence to the text would result in less hostility to religion, less hostility to honest police action, less hostility to private property, and less hostility to local community standards than would the radically liberal judges of the sort Obama favors.
Also, John McCain is an individualist. He believes in private action. He believes that individuals can live their lives responsibly without government acting as nanny and overseer and ultimate decision-maker on virtually every aspect of daily life. McCain trusts people with their own hard-earned money. McCain has never voted for a tax hike. McCain has supported almost every important tax-cut proposal for 25 years. Even on the two cuts he opposed, he stringently has supported keeping the lower level once it was set: It is a point of honor to him that American taxpayers should be able to count on lower tax rates once they are established and once they have begun to make plans based on those rates. McCain particularly understands that investors -- pensioners, 401(k) holders, homeowners -- are the engine of the economy, and that American investors right now are at a huge disadvantage to the entire rest of the developed world because our investment taxes are higher. McCain will cut investment taxes, and that's a very good thing for everybody.
Finally, there can be no doubt, none whatsoever, that John McCain will brook no corruption in his administration. Woe be to the appointee who would risk sullying McCain's vaunted honor by crooked deals and self-serving actions. It is likely that no administration in history will be so concerned with maintaining high ethical standards as a McCain administration would. And it will be blessed relief to have an administration where not even a hint of scandal will be even whispered by honest observers.
So there you have it: John McCain as a patriot firmly rooted in the American traditions of free enterprise, limited government, strong defense, personal accountability, and a decent respect for the cultural standards of the broad middle of the American public. Those are the constituent elements of American exceptionalism -- and to his great credit, John McCain is an American exceptionalist, and an exceptional American.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)