As a proposed topic for discussion going forward as we try to transition from a blog where we debate the election. Here's an interesting (I thought) early look as Team Obama makes their plays on the transition...
Standout quote:
“You better damn well do the tough stuff up front, because if you think you can delay the tough decisions and tiptoe past the graveyard, you’re in for a lot of trouble,” Mr. Panetta said. “Make the decisions that involve pain and sacrifice up front.”
Thoughts?
Innumerable thoughts occur to me... but I'll try to put them down.
I'm curious about our conservative members' thoughts on their party's run and future...
What's next for McCain? Party elder? Will he have the clout to bring anything to the table in the coming term? Where do the Republicans go from here? Is Palin the new face of the Republican party? Or did her candidacy turn off those crucial swing voters? Or were they simply defeated because McCain got dealt a bad hand -- doomed from the outset by being handcuffed to an ever more unpopular lame duck president?
And what does it really mean to be conservative in this new paradigm? Is the Christian right going to continue to reign, or will fiscal/business conservativism overtake the GOP because of it's draw across party lines? Or can the Republican party still forge a workable coalition from the disparate and bickering elements from this defeat? Where's the conservative path to a win for the midterms?
Most importantly - to me at least - is the call for a bipartisan effort from McCain in his concession speech... pretty words? Will reaching across the aisle to work with the new Democratic majority hurt or help the Republican cause in the next election? Is bipartisanship even possible on any real scale when the power rests so securely in the hands of one party.
As a side-comment: It is the ultimate irony to me that the party that spoke so brazenly awhile back about eliminating the filibuster from Senate rules must now rely upon it to get any voice in events that will transpire. As many commentators at the time noted, take a move that will effectively disenfranchizing a minority from their ability to block the majority from walking all over them is fine... when you're the ones in charge. Thank God cooler heads prevailed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Scott,
Many good questions to ponder. I'll only take one here and now.
As some of your previous comments, the comments of numerous others with whom I have spoken, and my own feelings seem to confirm, John McCain lost this election because he ran from John McCain.
I think people across party lines had respect for John McCain. He ran as a maverick, but the sad truth was that he had ceased to be one for almost eight years. I think he lost much of moderate America when he tacked tightly to the Bush agenda. He confirmed his miscalculation when he named Sarah Palin as his running mate. While she caught the media's attention for an entertaining span, she was ultimately a cancer on McCain. She was yet another instance of McCain betraying his own principles, an act which few Americans can forgive.
The narrow-minded and belligerent tactics and worldview of the extreme right that brought Bush to power and supported his hostile view of the world was just rejected. We just saw the referendum against that worldview. This is not to say that there aren't many who still hold this view. There are. But the mainstream of America has spoken clearly.
I say this because I don't think Barack Obama's -- President-elect Obama's -- plans were that much different from John McCain's. Both tried to run on a change agenda. Neither of their economic plans was revolutionary. Even their foreign policy views tacked toward one another. The biggest difference between them was how they ran their campaigns. The tone of the campaigns differed greatly.
Like McCain, Obama hit hard on policy issues. Like McCain, his campaign sometimes got the facts wrong. But unlike McCain, it was clear that Obama's approach did not rely on ad hominem attacks. Where McCain and Palin tried every trick in the book to smear Obama as a person, Obama stayed much more policy-focused and where he did attack McCain or Palin, it wasn't on a personal level. I think it was personal politics that the country rejected. At least I hope so.
Now I hope President-elect Obama is willing to go to Washington and restore the balance of power to our government, re-establish the rule of law, and repair the damage to our Constitutional heritage that eight years of the Bush regime has so deeply damaged. If he can do that, I have every confidence that he will preside over a resurgent United States of America in both economic and foreign policy/national security terms.
I agree that hard work sits ahead of both Obama and McCain. The harder work may be for the rest of us.
For Obama, the task will be to learn how to govern from a center that does not agree with his own stated beliefs. He will have to be a fiscal and social moderate and, dare I say it, even something of a foreign policy conservative.
Obama will have to figure out a way to reign in a government poised to launch on one of the biggest spending binges in world history, a binge based upon debt we have no foreseeable way to pay back. He will have to figure out a way to counterbalance a Congressional leadership bent on taxing everyone more, whatever his plans might have been.
Obama will have to realize that his social welfare agenda will have to be a compromise. Just because he was elected does not mean he has the only workable ideas. He needs to listen to everyone, not just those he agrees with, if he wants to succeed in the long run.
Obama will also have to realize that defending America's interests is the first responsibility of an American president. It is nice for other nations to like us, but it is necessary for America to be secure in order to preserve liberty. I do not suggest that he needs to somehow continue existing policies, but whatever he does must be measured and certain when it is done.
For McCain, the task will be to rescue a party that has completely abandoned any pretense that it is the party of practical conservatism so that it can continue to act as the balance to practical liberalism and a foil against the excesses of extremist leftism and rightism.
McCain will have to stand as the bulwark against the inevitable desire to turn inward after eight years of ongoing international crisis. He will have to foil the ridiculous notions that create ideas like cutting the military budget by 25 percent while we are at war and spending a trillion more dollars when we already project a trillion dollar deficit.
For the rest of us, the task will be deciding how to re-secure our liberty without abdicating that responsibility to a government that rarely has our individual best interests at heart. We will have to figure out how to bridge the gaps that divide us and create a true center made up of compromise rather than averages. We will have to figure out how to make this dysfunctional government of, by, and for us work again before it becomes so unwieldy that it becomes something else.
Denny,
Let's take these one at a time, in order:
1)Governing from the center
I think this will be easier for Obama than many people think. A lot of effort went into painting Obama as a super-liberal candidate. However, that picture is merely a contrast with the ultra-conservatism of the last eight years. Obama showed on the campaign trail that he can moderate his views. The proof will be in his actual governing, but I think he has it in him.
2) I have to disagree that he has to counterbalance Congress on taxes. Like it or not, the Bush administration spent us into enormous debt. They did it in our name, and they did it, ostensibly at least, for our security. The only way the government makes money is by taxing its citizens. It is our duty to pay our debts. This is a Republican principle if ever there was one. We owe that money, and we have to pay it. The sooner the better because it won't get cheaper. (That's where I think the article Scott linked to was really spot on. "Do the hard stuff first."
3) I think Obama values contrary opinions. His agenda here will need to be compromised if for no other reason than that we can't pay for everything he wants. Sadly, he will have to take responsibility where the Republicans failed to do so. That's one of the biggest fallacies in the public domain now: that Republicans are somehow the party of accountability. They've twice now run up huge debts that a Democratic President has had to pay down. (I think that's how they hope to hamstring the opposition party, but that might just be me.)
4) It's not merely nice for other people to like us, it's an important part of national security. You don't attack people you like. That said, I think we all agree that we can't please everyone. Still, I think there is a rational core on the international stage that has a pretty broad target of reasonable for us to hit. When we show we're willing to be good neighbors, we'll have more success getting our neighbors to help us oust the ones we all agree are bad.
5) The Republican party and it's stated values do need to be rescued, but McCain won't be the one to do it. This was his last shot at President and he has lost relevance to the party beyond the personal respect and affiliations he has managed to build over the years. I'm not sure who will step to the fore right now to guide the Republicans. I foresee some period of time where all we'll see is finger-pointing and disarray as they figure out how to handle this significant setback. In a way, it might turn out to be a bad thing for the Democrats that they won so much of the Congress. It will only fuel the parnoid underdog mentality of the most extreme elements of the party. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.
6) A smart 25% cut to the military budget won't hurt us at all. There is at least that much waste. However, Congress is incapable of a smart 25% cut. Too many members have constituencies that depend on bases and contracts. We'll continue to see the dominance of the military industrial complex even if some special interest programs get cut. We'll hear a big falderall about those, but they won't make a significant dent in our spending or our preparedness.
7) This isn't a new task. Some of us have been doing this for some time now. The jersey's have changed, so some people are just noticing. It will be fun to see how quickly the right becomes concerned about abuses of executive power now that their man isn't in the White House. This will be a time of real learning for people like me who didn't pay so much attention before Bush, but now can see where people really stand. The people who are consistent about their views despite the party change will stand in stark contrast to those who take a different stance now that they aren't in power (or are in power). We'll find out who has the childish reflex of wanting what they want when they want it, and those who take a principled stand.
Let me just say, in light of some of the heated debate that took place on this blog awhile ago (I think we did well during this election cycle), that this isn't a personal challenge to this group of bloggers. It is in the sense that we should hold each other to those standards of principle, but it isn't in the sense that I don't expect to see much change in how we approach things. Some, sure. But not much. I think this group knows what they think and why, and while we disagree and get heated, we at least want to be principled, even if we don't always heed our best nature.
David, I think most of what you are saying remains to be seen, but I understand your points except for:
I have to disagree that he has to counterbalance Congress on taxes. Like it or not, the Bush administration spent us into enormous debt.
The Bush administration--in fact no administration that has ever existed in the history of the United States--did not spend a single dime that was not authorized by Congress to be spent. Every budget, continuing resolution, and additional funding authorization was voted on, and therefore vetted by, the House and the Senate. Certainly, the administration went on to spend the money, but it did so with Congress' blessing. This includes both Democrat and Republican Congresses.
Yup, that's how it works. It seemed as though you thought that Congress, being majority Democratic, would want to increase taxes. My point was that Obama needs to let them do that if we are to meet our debt obligation.
David, I think both Reid and Pelosi have at least suggested that they intend an across the board tax increase by taking current tax rates to pre-2000 levels. Those rates increase the taxes on everyone who pays taxes.
Additionally, I make my point about Congress and spending because it is inherently wrong solely to blame the Bush administration for something Congress helped and will continue to help do. Saying the Bush administration is the guilty party is like blaming the girl for getting pregnant--the last time I checked, it takes both parties to happen in both cases.
OK, I was using "Bush Administration" a bit too broadly. That said, he had a Republican majority in Congress for six of the eight years he was in office, and it was the administration that set the Republican agenda. I don't think it is that far off base to assign the spending to his administration. I'm also pretty sure (though not positive) that you wouldn't be so quick to point that out if we were talking about a Democratic administration. You'll have a chance to prove me wrong about that last point when the new Congress raises taxes and you defend Obama from attacks that his administration is just another "tax and spend" one. ;)
“You better damn well do the tough stuff up front, because if you think you can delay the tough decisions and tiptoe past the graveyard, you’re in for a lot of trouble,” Mr. Panetta said. “Make the decisions that involve pain and sacrifice up front.”
Thoughts?
I think that's the politically expedient way of handling things, sure. However, making the "pain and sacrifice" decisions soon after inauguration could result in the populace becoming swiftly embittered with the new administration, which was supposed to turn everything up roses. Setting that kind of tone from the outset might prove detrimental.
What's next for McCain? Party elder? Will he have the clout to bring anything to the table in the coming term? Where do the Republicans go from here?
McCain, I think, will likely go back to being a senior Senator, and going about business much as he did before. I don't see him taking any further leadership roles in the GOP. Republicans need to be looking now at some new leadership, who are distant enough from our current president, and conservative enough to carry the base without persuasion.
Is Palin the new face of the Republican party? Or did her candidacy turn off those crucial swing voters?
I don't believe that she is, at least not yet. Once she's a little more seasoned, she may be ready for that title. We'll see where she is in four or eight years. As to whether her candidacy turned off certain demographics of voters, it's really hard to say. The typical voting blocks in this election were splintered every which way, from everything I've read. That said, I still maintain that she was brought in to rally the conservative base, while McCain was supposed to attract swing voters with his centrist record.
Or were they simply defeated because McCain got dealt a bad hand -- doomed from the outset by being handcuffed to an ever more unpopular lame duck president?
McCain certainly had the odds stacked against him, but it seemed to me (and many other conservatives) that at several points in the campaign, he wasn't running as if he wanted to win. He made numerous tactical and strategic errors, didn't attack when he could have, and attacked late even when he did attack. I could go on and on about how he actively lost the election, but I don't believe his campaign was doomed from the start.
And what does it really mean to be conservative in this new paradigm? Is the Christian right going to continue to reign, or will fiscal/business conservativism overtake the GOP because of it's draw across party lines? Or can the Republican party still forge a workable coalition from the disparate and bickering elements from this defeat?
The Republican party is going to need to rework its overall mindset, and bring all of the elements you listed back into the fold. For too long, the GOP has tried to be moderate and centrist, and downplay the elements of its base that have won elections for them in the past, and that has to change. You can go after the center all you want, but if you do so at the expense of your base, you're going to lose every time.
Where's the conservative path to a win for the midterms?
I think that largely depends on how badly things go for the next two years. If Congress' approval rating stays in the basement until the midterm elections, it's likely the people will start looking elsewhere for their candidates than the DNC, especially after they've gained such a majority.
Most importantly - to me at least - is the call for a bipartisan effort from McCain in his concession speech... pretty words? Will reaching across the aisle to work with the new Democratic majority hurt or help the Republican cause in the next election?
I think it'll only hurt the Republicans to try and work with the Democrats. They might not have realized it yet, but that very thing is what has lost them the majority in the first place. American conservatives don't want to have to choose between voting for liberals and moderates. We want real conservatives.
Is bipartisanship even possible on any real scale when the power rests so securely in the hands of one party.
I think that depends entirely on what kind of legislation and policy starts to come up during Obama's term in office. How much liberal can the congressional Republicans stomach before they flatly refuse to cooperate?
Post a Comment