The Maverick Tribe

Barack Obama loves to say he's running for president because of what Martin Luther King called the "fierce urgency of now."  Guess he didn't know we already have a president who already embodies it.  According to Michael Gerson, his former speechwriter:

[Bush] views both meditation on the past and speculation about his legacy with equal suspicion, preferring to live in the urgency of the now.

Dude you're a speechwriter.  You're supposed to be original.

George Will redeems himself and makes up for last week's brain fart with this:

The week before South Carolina voted was the week when, at last, even some Democrats noticed. Noticed, that is, the distinctive cloud of coarseness that hovers over the Clintons, seeping acid rain.

That cloud has been a constant accouterment of their careers and has been influencing the nation's political weather for 16 years. But by the time Bill Clinton brought the Democratic Party in from the wilderness in 1992, the party had lost five of the previous six, and seven of the previous 10, presidential elections. Democrats were so grateful to him, and so determined not to resume wandering in the wilderness, that they averted their gazes to avoid seeing, and hummed show tunes to avoid hearing, the Clintons' routine mendacities.

 

In appraising the maverick-ness of John McCain last Sunday, the normally astute and sober George Will comes up with this brain fart in paragraph 12:

Republicans are supposed to eschew demagogic aspersions concerning complicated economic matters.

Really.  Then someone needs to tell this to Rudy Giuliani, who appears to believe the phrase "tax cuts" constitutes a comprehensive fiscal policy (and the corollary that any Democratic proposal be understood as nothing more complex than "tax and spend").  Someone needs to relay the message to Mike Huckabee, who rails against C.E.O.'s salaries.  Someone needs to tap the shoulder of Mitt Romney (who as a Bain executive undoubtedly ordered the creative destruction of thousands of jobs) when he pledges to Michigan voters that he would restore every manufacturing job lost there.

Let's not pussyfoot around the fact that Barack Obama's appeal is basically emotional.  His soaring rhetoric, themes of hope, international flavor, youthful vigor, undeniable hotness, and kickass wife Michelle stir up a giddyness among the pundits and electorate alike that has a way of suppressing careful thought about his resume or policy prescriptions.  Should he be elected president, it's going to be JFK and Jackie all over again (with a happier ending, one hopes).

I'm a left-brained guy.  I generally try to avoid making decisions based on emotion, so this campaign season I've been trying to weigh Obama against his rivals based on the merits.  The main critique leveled against him - that he's simply too green to be given the keys to the Situation Room - is legitimate.  He simply does not have as much experience on the national stage, and this can be a bad thing.  But rarely in the press do you hear a real comparison on "experience":  his eleven years in elected office against her seven.  And I'm not sure who designated First Lady the entry-level position to the presidency.  Still, when Bill Clinton says that electing Obama is a "roll of the dice", he's got a point.

Another meme out there is that Obama is all style and no substance.  This particular allegation is without merit.  Clinton tends to emphasize policy particulars in her speeches whereas Obama tends to focus on political process and culture.  But his publicly available policy proposals are every bit as detailed as hers, in some cases more so.  He's been specific about what he would do about Social Security (raising the salary cap on payroll taxes), thereby leaving himself vulnerable to attacks that he's a tax-raiser.  Hillary refuses to be nailed down on what she would do, a tactic that is as cowardly as it is conventional.  The Clintons' contention that he's been inconsistent on some of the issues (health care, Iraq War) is silly.

By and large, there aren't significant policy differences between the Democrats.  The choice really comes down to temperament, character, and ability.  While his abilities as a chief executive are something of a question mark, the first two are where Obama really shines.  He has been called a "liberal with a conservative temperament".  I like that.  While his record is undeniably liberal, he's not bound by left wing orthodoxy.  He's willing to talk about merit pay in front of teachers unions, emissions standards in front of auto executives.  He bristles at the glib and the demagogic.  His articulation of the issues reflects a careful consideration of the opposing view.

Only Obama and McCain have any promise of leading our country out of the abyss of partisan rancor that we seem to have fallen into around sixteen years ago.  Electing the polarizing Hillary Clinton would be a major retreat to the trenches.  Sadly, this remains my prediction for November's outcome.

I haven't yet said anything about Barack Obama's race.  I think he would want it that way -- that race not be the first thing that comes to people's minds when they think Obama.  Not only does he have the potential to be a "post-partisan" leader, he also promises to be a "post-racial" one.  This alarms the Jesse Jackson Old Guard, who are unable or unwilling to engage in the campaign without wielding their sacred identity politics.  (Recent skirmishing over the role of MLK and how that relates to Obama has not been encouraging.)  With all this back and forth about Obama's background, whether he is or is not a Muslim, is he "black enough", etc., obscures the real conversation we ought to be having, which is what to do about recalcitrant racial inequality in America.  Race, as politically radioactive and subject to cynical baiting and maneuvering as it is, has not been a central theme of Obama's candidacy, which is a shame.  I would personally rank racial/urban inequality in the top five issues we ought to tackle in 2008, and if there's anyone who can lead us out of the darkness, it's Obama, who surely understands our circumstance with as much depth and objectivity as anyone.  Don't take my word for it - read his first book.

After listening to one of his speeches about bridging the divide between "red states" and "blue states" the other day, I flipped through the news channels on TV.  Bill O'Reilly was on, chest fully puffed, crowing about how he had "defended the Constitution" by pushing around a staffer at an Obama event.  Over on MSNBC, a couple of partisan apparatchiks were trying to shout over one another.  Somewhere else, Harry Reid was likely formulating his latest invective against President Bush. 

And it just struck me about Obama:  we need this guy.

Clinton 39

Obama 37

Weekly Standard-bearer and Iraq cheerleader Bill Kristol debuts in the New York Times today with a banal piece of crap.

James Fallows of the Atlantic marvels at the stylistic mediocrity.

But notice something else about the column:

[Huckabee] began by calmly mentioning his and Obama’s contrasting views on issues from guns to life to same-sex marriage. This served to remind Republicans that these contrasts have been central to G.O.P. success over the last quarter-century, and to suggest that Huckabee could credibly and comfortably make the socially conservative case in an electorally advantageous way.

If you pay close attention to Republican political strategy, you notice that they continue to rely on the premise that America is basically a "center-right" country, that "liberal" is a dirty word, and that a solidly conservative platform wins elections.  These right wing comrades are still living in the Reagan Revolution.  But the weaponry of guns, God, and gays, not to mention free markets and low taxes, is getting rustier and rustier every year.  Voters are being to realize that these positions are insufficient to contend with the complex problems of our times.  Ain't gonna cut it in 2008.

David Brooks in the New York Times:

This is a huge moment. It’s one of those times when a movement that seemed ethereal and idealistic became a reality and took on political substance.

So the establishment candidates lost in Iowa yesterday, which means all bets are off.  A few days ago I wrote about how the conventional wisdom held that success in Iowa could create unstoppable political mojo for Romney and Clinton.  Now that Huckabee and Obama are the victors, conventional wisdom no longer applies.  This could be an interesting primary season after all.

The Iowa caucuses are tomorrow.  If the experts are to be believed, then about six percent of the registered voters in a state containing less than one percent of the nation's inhabitants will all but determine the presidential nominations.  I listened to Pat Buchanan this morning on MSNBC tell me that if Hillary Clinton wins Iowa, she'll have the nomination locked up.  And if Romney secures a convincing win in this mainly rural, 90% white state, then no one can stop him, again according to the experts.

On February 5th I will have the opportunity to cast an irrelevant ballot in the California primary.  (Haven't made up my mind yet as to whether I'll be voting in the superfluous Democratic primary or the pointless Republican one.)  Then I get to look forward to a general election season in which neither major party candidate will so much as utter the word "California", much less have us as an audience.  (Rest assured we'll be hearing plenty of snide pronouncements about "the culture of Hollywood" and "San Francisco values".)

The Soviet-style election absurdity doesn't end with the presidential contest.  Consider my three representatives in the U.S. Congress:  Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and, as a San Francisco resident, Nancy Pelosi.  None of these women have faced a serious contender in their most recent respective reelection campaigns.  (I don't think the Republicans even bother trying to get on the ballot against Pelosi anymore.)

But wait, there's more.  Since the Prague Spring of democracy that resulted in a recall of then-governor Gray Davis in 2003, California statewide politics have been a real snore.  Not one seat in the California Legislature has changed party hands in recent memory.  (Could this have something to do with districts for California legislators being drawn by... California legislators?)  Even Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2006 reelection was contested by a weak and forgettable Democrat.

Then there's San Francisco politics, in which Mayor Gavin Newsom, with a very mixed record and an adulterous relationship with his own campaign manager's wife to his credit, was handed another term in an election that was little more than a formality.

There are lots of things we could do about this:  reform of the primary system, repeal of the electoral college system, term limits, and requiring that legislative districts be drawn by a computer, to name just a few.  Not all of these measures are necessily constructive, but we need to extend the conversation beyond the wonks and political science professors of the world.  Let's get this party started.