A Conversation on Presidents’ Day

February 13, 2009 2 Comments


456px-abraham_lincoln_head_on_shoulders_photo_portraitAbraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States was born on this day, February 12, in 1809—exactly 200 years ago. He’s one of three Presidents born in the month of February: George Washington on the 22nd in 1732, and Ronald Reagan on the 20th in 1911.

Washington died in 1797, at the age of 67. This was just thirteen years before Lincoln’s birthday. Had Lincoln lived to be 67 (and died in 1876), Reagan’s birth would have followed only 35 years later. Of the three, Reagan lived longest—93 years. If all three men had lived to be 93, Lincoln would have been 14 at Washington’s death in 1823, and Lincoln would have lived another 46 years, dying the year Reagan was born. Ronald Reagan won the presidential election in the year I was first eligible to vote.

Imagine eavesdropping on a conversation between these three great figures. What would they talk about? Here are portions of one scenario that occurs to me.

Washington (to Mr. Lincoln): We all feared and half-expected that the union of our colonies under a shared constitution might not last. There were many reasons to be skeptical. One, of course, was the problem of black slavery. We believed that a titanic struggle over slavery would come. We expected it much sooner than it happened. But in those days, the infant nation had fought to the fringes of its might the power of king George. The issue of slavery, something that plagued our consciences to our dying days, could not be addressed directly at the time. What little there was of “union” would have dissolved in an instant. Mind you, we also felt that delay on this point would reinforce and perpetuate that damnable practice, so that the struggle which had to come sooner or later could mean the end of our union. It was a risk we had to take, you understand?

Lincoln: That is all as I suspected. It was my singular duty to have charge over the Union when the inevitable occurred. I had no doubt that Providence was at work in the timing of my presidency and what is called the “Civil War.” It was that . . . a civil war. We were a nation of men and women at war with each other. There’s truth in calling it “the war between the states.” Robert Lee’s agreement to lead the “Confederacy” was, I have to say, a shock to me. I believed then that our country would be torn in two, with no prospect of reconciliation. But it turned out we had generals equal to Lee. In due course, I began to imagine the possibility of re-union. Sadly, though the war had been won, my time for leadership—ordained by God—was over before the challenge of reconstruction could begin.

Reagan: It’s a wonder that war didn’t end in anarchy. That it didn’t is a tribute to your leadership, Mr. Lincoln. It’s also a tribute to the ratification of the United States Constitution, General Washington.

Washington: Ratification almost did not happen. Some of us wondered if it would matter. We realized that a document, a piece of paper, could be shredded. Our Republic depended on government “by the people,” as Jefferson wrote, to the consternation of Georgie. If the people could not abide the Constitution in the years ahead, . . . well.

Reagan: Well, some have threatened to shred the Constitution. The greatest offenders have been our own justices of the Supreme Court, and appointed federal judges, who swear to uphold the Constitution.

Washington: That is one of the great surprises for me. Many at the Convention thought a Supreme Court was a bad idea, that it would disallow adequate representation of all the states. They thought the law could be drafted and enforced by the states themselves. This, of course, was nonsense.  There had to be laws that protected the union of the states, as well as states’ rights. That called for a judiciary at the federal level. Congress would make law. But there needed to be a sensible body with a steady grip on the Constitution, so that laws passed in Congress and signed by the President would safeguard the survival of a fragile union. It was, I think, one of our better ideas to provide for a federal court.

Reagan: No doubt about it. But appointing judges to the bench was among the most difficult challenges I faced as President. It was clear that certain judges, whom we called “liberal,” were legislating from the bench, and doing so in violation of the Constitution. During my administration, two opposing views about the Constitution had taken root and defined much of the “conservative-liberal” debate. Some held that the Constitution is a “living document,” meaning that the justices had to adapt its general configuration to the needs and circumstances of the times. The other main group argued for “original intent.”

501px-gilbert_stuart_williamstown_portrait_of_george_washingtonWashington: Yes, the idea that there should be strict adherence to the Constitution as it was intended to be understood by its framers—by those of us who were there. You wish to know the position of the framers on precisely this point? Believe me when I tell you that this was a matter of considerable controversy during the convention. Jefferson warned against a fluid constitution quite explicitly, and I sided with him in the matter. I am happy to say that most agreed that the Constitution should be framed for timeless application. And I dare say that all who were there and finally ratified the Constitution had no doubt about “original intent,” as your generation called it. There were misgivings, to be sure. And this is why the Constitution made provision for amendment. The process of amendment was meant to be deliberately cumbersome. This, no doubt, explains why some preferred to think of the Constitution as a “living document.” Perhaps judges could be influenced to make unofficial amendments and write law when they were supposed to be interpreting law.

Lincoln: It would be odd, would it not, to argue for the “living document” theory on the grounds that this was the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution?

Washington: Is that how they argued?

Reagan: It is more or less how they argued.

Washington: Well, I can tell you that any person who thinks that is wrong.

Lincoln: “Living document.” That would have been a convenient trick in my day. The justices could have settled our issues with the stroke of their pens. I believe our civil war was fought with deference to the Constitution by both sides. The Confederacy did craft its own constitution, in preparation for independence from the Union. Their constitution was actually adopted, in March of 1861. But I’m sure you know about all that.

Reagan: Well, I know the confederate constitution was virtually identical to the U.S. Constitution.

Lincoln: Quite right. The two main differences were additions. Their constitution stressed greater independence for individual states, and it permitted the ownership of slaves. I always thought their document was a tacit concession to the authority of our Constitution and an admission of guilty rebellion against it.

Washington: This is the form of challenge to the Constitution that we expected in those early days. Secession was a grave concern. And it could not have been tried without bloodshed.

Lincoln: If the southern states had won their independence, their own constitution would have led to strife between the confederate states themselves, with no constitutional recourse to prevent the convenience of secession. I think this would have happened very early on. Within a decade.

Reagan: Why is that?

Lincoln: The states in the south may have shared an approval of slave-ownership—enthusiasm even for that varied considerably from state to state—but they differed on other points. Commercial imports and exports, for example. Some states were bound to enjoy greater wealth and thus be in a position, eventually, to attempt annexation of bordering states with weaker defenses. I never understood why Cobb Howell, and all the others, could not see that their constitutional efforts were thwarted in the very act of waging war with the union army.

Washington: Mr. Reagan, you presided over the conclusion of an altogether different war, the so-called “cold war.”

479px-official_portrait_of_president_reagan_1981Reagan: Yes, the “cold” war. There was always the threat of nuclear war and mutual annihilation. Nobody wanted it. But warheads that could destroy whole cities proliferated. One nation would seek its security in the development of more and more arms, just to keep pace with other nations capable of causing mass destruction from a safe distance.

Lincoln: I shudder at the thought of it. We fought with conventional weapons. Had it been otherwise, there may have been nothing left in the end—or no one left—and nothing that could be salvaged and rebuilt into a viable state. The European nations would have swooped in and re-colonized.

Washington: I agree. America’s independence has always depended on its strength as a unified nation. France and England kept a constant vigil for any opportunity to ruin our Republic.

Reagan: The Brits were our closest allies during the cold war. It was fortunate for me and our great country that Maggie Thatcher was prime minister at the time. The French didn’t really enter into the equation all that much. They were, in my judgment, opportunists who might play the sides of the Soviet Union and the United States against each, to whatever advantage they could. They had a reputation for that sort of thing in the twilight years of the 20th century.

[Later in the conversation . . .]

Lincoln: Mr. Reagan, you narrowly survived an assassination attempt. I understand you were wounded, and didn’t know about it for the first few minutes.

Reagan: That’s true. I knew there had been gunfire, and I worried that there might have been injuries. Things happened quickly. I was shoved by security agents into a limousine. We were on our way back to the White House when it was noticed that I was bleeding. So we changed course and went directly to Walter Reed Hospital. It saved my life.

[A few moments pass before anyone speaks.]

Lincoln (quietly and slowly): I lost consciousness the moment Booth fired his pistol. The situation never improved.

Reagan: What happened in that balcony that night is unspeakable.

Lincoln: You know, don’t you, that I would not have won re-election. I was never popular with the people during my presidency.

Reagan: That’s what the history books say. But you were admired by every American in my day.

Washington: Citizens are a fickle lot. Mr. Lincoln, given the opportunity, would you have run for re-election, regardless of public opinion and the likelihood that you would lose?

Lincoln: I would. I was responsible for the conduct of the war, and I wanted desperately  to oversee reconstruction. I didn’t think there was anyone else who knew what to do. I still believe that. The Confederacy had surrendered. But the peace had not yet been achieved—not really. They needed to see me reaching out to them with an olive branch. They needed to be able to trust.

Washington: Our enemy was king George. Yours, Mr. Reagan, was the communist party of the Soviet Union. But Mr. Lincoln, for you the enemy was your neighbor.

Lincoln: Sadly true. Our militia was more of a police force at first. It was deployed to deal with internal rebellions. But the southern states formed their own union, declared secession, and mustered an army and a navy. Suddenly, we were at war.

Reagan: No president since the Civil War questioned the wisdom of your leadership during that trying time. Even your vice president, Andrew Johnson, who was a Democrat from Tennessee, supported you. I find that remarkable. I was on friendly terms with many leading Democrats in Congress, but I don’t know that I could have counted on their support in the way you could with Johnson.

Lincoln: I’m glad you mention Johnson. President Johnson was a man of honor. Anyone in his position during Reconstruction would have been in a hard place. He may have been too conciliatory and moved too quickly to accommodate the grievances of the South. I can’t be sure I would have acted much differently.

Reagan: I can tell you this, Johnson was wise in his purchase of Alaska from the Russians. Most people don’t even know about that. I realize he could not have known the significance this investment would have for my generation. But I’m eternally grateful. He didn’t know about the gold in the Alaska territory. He didn’t know about its oil resources. And he certainly didn’t have any reason to expect conflict with the Russians on the scale that we faced during the cold war.

Lincoln: You have my friend, William Seward, to thank, as well. William was my Secretary of State. The purchase of Alaska was William’s idea. Here’s the kicker. He brought it up to me, with annoying frequency, I should say. I could not see the point in it. And it was a distraction. Thank God, Johnson listened to him. William probably made such a nuisance of himself that Johnson simply relented out of sheer exasperation.

Washington: That Johnson fellow was vice president for barely a month before your assassination, Mr. Lincoln. This business of comparing Presidents and sorting out who was the best and who was the worst is unsettling. Andrew Johnson made one momentous decision that might never have been made by anyone else. But the experts rank him down there at “the bottom.”

Lincoln: Would you agree, Mr. Washington, that Providence has a hand in these things?

Washington: I do.

Lincoln: And you, Mr. Reagan?

Reagan: You bet I do.

Related posts:

Filed under History, Politics Tagged with ,

Mudflats Is at It Again

January 11, 2009 3 Comments


The obsession with Sarah Palin continues over at Mudflats. This time the news is “Palin is Back at Work.” I guess that means she has started caring about health care for children and pregnant women. First evidence of this is that she is suddenly prepared to write more into the state budget for this purpose. Notice the  word “more,” which is not emphasized by the Mudflats Maven. The source she quotes, The Anchorage Daily News, does explicitly acknowledge that this is an “increase” in coverage.

What miffs Mudflats is that it’s too little too late, more or less. You see, there was an oil-related windfall a year ago that could have been applied to the problem. It wasn’t. Now there’s the possibility of a near-term shortfall, because of the plummeting price of oil these days. So the coverage will be hard to pay for. You understand, don’t you, that whether children and pregnant women get the health care coverage that’s just right depends on the price of oil.

I don’t know what “just right” is. Neither does the Maven. But once an expenditure is in place for anything the government pays for, it’s unusual for that expenditure to be wratcheted down later on, even if there’s no money for it. Imagine, in this case, what that would mean. “Mean” would indeed be the operative term. To take coverage away from children and pregnant women, because the state could no longer afford it—because the price of oil was down—would be mean, plain and simple.

Of course, the Mavin speculates about Palin’s reasons for the unexpected about-face. Palin’s VP candidacy brought national attention to Palin’s neglect of this sector of the Alaskan population, so now she has, under penalty of chagrin, to do something about it. And “she has plans for 2012, after all.” The Mudflats Maven knows. Maybe she does. That is, maybe she knows Palin has plans for 2012; hence, maybe Palin has plans for 2012. (I have plans for 2012, too, just for the record.)

Filed under Oil Production, Politics, Sarah Palin Tagged with , , , , ,

Why Winning a Presidential Election Is No Big Deal

December 9, 2008 3 Comments


Of course, being the President of the United States is a big deal. For one thing, you get to sit behind a cool desk and look powerful. (Apparently, however, it does’t take long to discover that even a president-elect has limited powers. Our current PE, Mr. Barack Obama, has already revealed plans to be more realistic than his campaign promises.) You get to travel the world and talk to all the other really important people. You get to live in the Big White House. And someday, you’ll have a giant library with your own name on it, dedicated to reminding everyone of your past greatness.

Still, there’s a sense in which winning an election, even a presidential election, is no big deal. It may attest to your campaign prowess, your ability to raise more money than you can spend, and your ability to look presidential. But does it establish that you are the rightful heir to presidential power? Constitutionally it does, certainly. But is this the only sense that matters, in a democracy? It shouldn’t be. A citizen becomes President by garnishing a sufficient amount of support from voters. And it’s the constitution of today’s voter, not the Constitution of the United States, that requires chastened realism about the significance of an electoral victory.

Since the voters decide who is to be president, the quality of the decision correlates with the quality of the electorate’s decision making powers. With this in mind, I’m led directly to wonder: how does it feel to win an election, knowing that those who voted for you, as a block, have no idea why you deserve to be President? Fortunately, with all the preparations before Inaguration Day, there is precious little time for sobering thoughts along these lines. Unless you’re not the president-elect and you don’t have such great matters to distract you. Then you can ponder the wisdom of the electorate—if you have the stomach for it.

There’s a common form of argument called modus tollens. It goes like this:

  1. If P, then Q.
  2. Not-Q.
  3. Therefore, not-P.

If P stands for “The majority of the electorate in the 2008 general election voted wisely,” and Q represents “The decision to elect Barack Obama as the the 44th President of the United States was a wise decision,” then we get the following argument, using the above schema:

  1. If the majority of the electorate in the 2008 general election voted wisely, then the decision to elect Barack Obama as the the 44th President of the United States was a wise decision.”
  2. The decision to elect Barack Obama as the the 44th President of the United States was not a wise decision.
  3. Therefore, majority of the electorate in the 2008 general election did not vote wisely.

I don’t think we need such an argument to establish the conclusion in statement (3). That’s because there is plenty of independent evidence that the electorate did not vote wisely, and, strange as it may sound, this has almost nothing to do with Barack Obama. The most salient evidence has to do with the appalling illiteracy of the American electorate, about history and economics, about values and political theory, and a host of other things.

Some who voted in the recent election believe that the Revolutionary War was won at the Battle of Gettysburg, that the Holocaust is a Jewish holiday, and that Lithuania is stored in a bottle in mother’s medicine cabinet. Suppose we subtract from the electorate any person who believes any one of these things, or anything else akin to such things. Why would we do that? Not simply because their beliefs are silly in the sense of being mistaken, but because they are silly in the sense of being believed for the reasons people who believe such things believe such things. Wouldn’t that be a step in the right direction, a kind of minimalist step, to get decision makers with a modicum of knowledge and knowledge-acquisition skills, capable of making wise decisions about who gets to sit behind the Big Desk?

To be sure, the intelligence test I’ve just proposed is pretty minimalist. It doesn’t account for level of reasoning ability. We should want our voting citizens to be well-informed and capable of basic critical reflection. Two of my examples of “silly beliefs” are taken from Lewis H. Lapham’s article “Playing with Fire” (Lapham’s Quarterly, Fall 2008). Lapham writes, “Why would any politician in his or her right mind wish to confront an informed citizenry capable of breaking down the campaign speeches into their subsets of supporting lies?” That’s an excellent question. It’s meant to be rhetorical: no politician today would wish such a thing. If Lapham is right about that, then we need different politicians. But then they might not be the politicians we deserve.

Filed under Barack Obama, Politics Tagged with , ,

Lead-Up to “The Unnecessary War”

November 30, 2008 Leave a comment


I was in Boston last week, hanging out with a friend and fellow-philosopher. He gave me two book recommendations:

and

I’ve read the first four chapters of Dubay, but that isn’t enough to have a firm opinion about it yet. I’m halfway through Buchanan and I’m prepared to recommend it for its carefully documented but iconoclastic interpretation of the lead-up to World War 2.

buchanan-unnecessary-warThe verdict on Hitler is pretty well-established, I’d say. Buchanan doesn’t veer from that. But Winston Churchill may have been a more dangerous war-monger than most would think. The evidence of Churchill’s predilections for military engagement, and for shifting blame for the war’s outcome, casts a pall over the received view of his leadership through “inevitable crisis.” David Lloyd George has become a person of interest to me. And I now know more about Chamberlain than before. Lord Balfour is a puzzle to me. These are achievements of the author. They reflect his success in stirring my interest and leaving clues to follow for further study.

Buchanan is not a professional historian; but he is a provocative interpreter. His thesis is controversial and has already been challenged by aficionados. He could get to the point more quickly. But he’s determined to support his claims with statements made by the players themselves and by sharp historians of the period. He quotes someone on virtually every page, sometimes at length. In every case, however, his choice of quotes is a valuable contribution. Each remark helps to capture the mood of the figures who made the critical decisions and altered the course of history.

Buchanan’s chief objective is to explain how World War 2 might have been averted, if it hadn’t been for vanity, or incompetence, or misinformation at numerous turns and among numerous parties. This story has no doubt been told before. But only here is it told in Buchanan’s style, and with his perspective on current events.

My thoughts about the war, its lead-up, its aftermath, and its present significance have been enriched:

  • I can now entertain the possibility that the Kaiser’s war (i.e., World War 1) was a war of German survival without imperialist ambitions.
  • I think I understand better how Hitler managed his coup and led a demoralized people into unwelcome conflict with the European powers.
  • I hadn’t known of Mussolini’s disgust toward Hitler and of Hitler’s almost obsequious admiration for Mussolini.
  • The hypnotic effect of Hitler on Western leaders who knew of his diabolical behavior (who were even, at times, on the receiving end of it) never ceases to astonish. This mystery is compounded by Buchanan’s telling of the story.
  • Ever since my visit to the Brenner Pass in the majestic Italian alps I’ve wondered how it came about that this region, formerly a precinct of Austria, had been handed over.
  • The roles played by Czechoslovakia and Poland impress me as much more significant now.

I could go on. Instead, I’ll read on, and probably learn more about how America came to abandon its protectionism and make war on the continent (I suspect it has something to do with the Japanese, who had been disenfranchised by the British), the mystery of alliance with Stalin’s regime, and much more. I expect—I hope—I’ll have more questions when I’m done reading. But before the book is closed, I feel comfortable already recommending it to others.

Note: There’s a Kindle version of Buchanan’s book. If there wasn’t, I might never have gotten round to reading it. Learn about Kindle here.

Filed under History, Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Jesus and the Democratic Process

November 29, 2008 4 Comments


“WakeUpAmerica,” a welcome visitor to this blog, recently made an interesting suggestion. I liked the suggestion and decided to create a post that might encourage readers to think about the issue and post their comments.

If Jesus was living in America in the 21st century, what would his politics be? Would he be registered with a political party? If so, which one? Would he start his own party? Would he run for office? Would Jesus vote? What issues would matter to him most? Would he campaign for a political candidate? In the most recent general election, is there a candidate he would have voted for? Would Jesus favor a democracy, or some other form of government? In other words, how would Jesus participate, if at all, in the political process if he was a 21st-century American citizen?

Here are three questions about the questions listed above:

  1. What difference does it make what Jesus would do? What’s the point in asking?
  2. Is what Jesus would do what we should do?
  3. Is it any different to ask, “What would Jesus do if, instead of being Jesus, he was one of us?”

Here’s one more question, for good measure: On what basis can we speculate how Jesus would conduct himself if he lived in a democracy like ours?

Filed under Christianity, Politics

I Want a Bailout

November 25, 2008 1 Comment


Suppose it’s August 2007. You apply for a line of credit against the equity in your existing home. CitiBank approves a line of credit that allows you to invest in some undeveloped property and still have something left for building a modest vacation home where you can be near your family for part of the year.

Fast forward to November 2008. CitiBank sends you a letter. It claims that the venerable financial institution has reviewed your assets and concluded that you are no longer in a position financially to meet payments on the balance of your line of credit, should you wish to borrow that money. They’ve decided to zero out your balance, effective November 5. The letter you hold in your hands arrived by regular mail on November 6.

You’re stuck. You have a piece of property with no prospect now of building. It’s unlikely that you could sell it for what you paid for it a year ago. And, in any case, you don’t want to sell it; you want to pursue your dream. But CitiBank has revoked your line of credit. This despite the fact that you’ve made all your monthly payments on schedule for over a year.

You wonder what changes in your financial situation could have reversed CitiBank’s kind disposition toward you. And then it occurs to you. Maybe it’s not your financial condition that has them worried, but their own financial condition that has them over the barrel. Maybe they’re afraid you’ll write a check against your line of credit and they won’t be able to cover it.

Sure enough, a week later you learn that CitiBank has recently laid off tens of thousands of employees and that they lost billions of dollars during the past twelve months. “Aha!” you think. “So that’s what happened!”

Is it any consolation to know that they freaked, and then dissembled? Of course not. You’re still stuck. You secretly hope that CitiBank will be held accountable, that maybe the CEO will have to look for work.

And then you learn today that CitiBank has been offered a bailout, because the economy needs it. Isn’ that nice?

The above scenario has been played out for countless customers of CitiBank. The details vary but the shenanigans are the same. Some customers “took out” a line of credit to have greater security for a rainy day. Others to meet expenses for children in college. And others to make essential repairs on the only home they’ll ever own. Every one of the customers victimized by CitiBank’s recklessness deserves a bailout as much as CitiBank. But what are the chances they’ll be getting a letter in the next week saying, “We’re happy to announce that your original line of credit has been reinstated?”

Filed under Economy, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Eric Chartman Charts the Political Age of Sarah Palin

November 15, 2008 1 Comment


Eric Chartman, over at American Heartland Bar and Grill, explains why Sarah Palin has plenty of time to return to the national scene in politics. Click here for his chart analysis of “political aging.”

Then come on back to this post and place your bet on Palin’s future:

  1. She will go back to Alaska as governor and never rise to a higher level of political leadership.
  2. She will go back to Alaska as governor and deliberately position herself to return to the national spotlight in 2012.
  3. She will go back to Alaska as governor and seek election to the U. S. Senate at the earliest opportunity.
  4. She will eventually run for President of the U.S. and win.
  5. She will eventually run for President of the U.S. and lose.
  6. She will become the CEO of the largest American oil company.
  7. She will spend the rest of her evenings watching Star Trek re-runs.
  8. Other: __________________________________________.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , ,

Nominate Your Favorite Blog or Blog Post for Post-Election Obama Coverage

November 15, 2008 Leave a comment


Question #1—What is the best conservative blog or blog post for post-election Obama coverage?

Question #2—What is the best liberal blog or blog post for post-election Obama coverage?

Don’t analyze this too carefully. If you’ve seen interesting and worthwhile general coverage or an especially good post, just let me know about it in the reply box!

Filed under Barack Obama, Politics Tagged with ,

Would You Like to Be Called a Family Friend by Bill Ayers?

November 15, 2008 Leave a comment


So Bill Ayers was this morning’s Good Morning America celebrity. What a way to say “Good Morning” to America!

In the course of the interview, which lasted for quite awhile, Ayers was asked about a remark in his new book. In the book he refers to Barack Obama as “a family friend.” What’s that supposed to mean?

How would you like to be called a family friend by Bill Ayers? And if you really are a family friend of Bill Ayers, and now you’re also the United States President-elect, how do you respond to this bit of news?

What say you?

Oh, one more thing. How does Obama the “Elect One” respond without making it look like he’s trying to fool the American people about whatever relationship he may have had with Bill Ayers?

Filed under Barack Obama, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

How I Managed to Miss the Election

November 13, 2008 Leave a comment


I have a passion for politics. Thus, I deeply regret that about the only access I have to its vicissisitudes is through the media, so beloved by Americans today. The truth is, I’m what once would have been called, metaphorically, of course, a “junkie.” You can imagine what this means for me during the year of a general election. At least I had the sense to wait until January 1, 2008 to tune in to campaigning that had already been going on for nearly a year. I vaguely recall the relief I felt when the primaries were over.

That was nothing compared to the relief I now feel about being able to think about something other than the future condition of the United States of America. That was such a huge responsibility. The election took that particular weight off my shoulders. It was as if the fate of our national culture had been decided and there was nothing left to do about it. My vote had been cast (by absentee ballot), and my contribution—the climax of hours, days, and months of careful analysis of every nuance of truly weird media coverage—was complete.

But there’s something else that fills out the explanation for my equanimity subsequent to this particular election decision: I missed it! I missed the election!! I was holed up in a cabin on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington state, with no TV, no radio, no web connection. I did have popcorn and a microwave, but that didn’t translate into an evening of couch potato, election-watching entrancement—I mean, enchantment—that has been my joy every four years since Ronald Reagan challenged Jimmy Carter.

It wasn’t supposed to be that way. But I’m on sabbatical leave from my teaching duties, and due to a series of unavoidable events, the only days I could work into my calendar for “ideal sabbatical working conditions” encompassed the one day when ideal working conditions would cause deep frustration—November 4, election day.

As it happened, I managed pretty well. I did have a cell phone, so my wife was able to fill me in with admirable brevity and enviable composure. She should have been a news anchor for a major cable network. At any rate, and to my surprise, the call was enough for me. I may have swallowed hard a couple of times. But I got right down to work on my writing projects with virtually no remnants of concern. And so, I owe a great debt to the simple grandeur of the Olympic Peninsula and my dear friends who graciously made their cabin available. I learned that I could survive without the usual inoculation of political serum. I found that I could miss the election . . . without missing the election.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Suzie-Q Fears a “Palin Theocracy”

October 23, 2008 5 Comments


Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. In September she warned of a “Palin Theocracy.” Her article was published in the online newsletter CounterPunch, which Out of Bounds Magazine calls “America’s best political newsletter.” A ringing endorsement, maybe, but who reads Out of Bounds? Who even knows about it? I suppose it’s endorsed by CounterPunch as the best magazine of its kind. But I digress.

Suzie-Q is a pro-Obama blog that posted Cohn’s article to give it greater exposure. That’s where I first came across Ms. Cohn’s alarmist piece. (DigitizedRevolution also posted the article.)

Now, I don’t have a personal beef with Suzie-Q or the CounterPunch lads, or even with Marjorie Cohn. But I would like to know what Cohn actually means by “theocracy.” She never says. Her riffs are all about Palin’s religious beliefs, her views on abortion and other social issues, and her candid talk about such things. After yesterday’s Palin interview with James Dobson, Cohn probably has more to add to her list of grievances.

But what do they amount to? Whatever she means by the term, it’s clear that Marjorie Cohn doesn’t like theocracy. Is this because theocracy is incompatible with democracy? I would have thought so. But I can’t find anything in the evidence arrayed against Palin that remotely suggests she’s undemocratic.

On the other hand, if Cohn allows that theocracy, in the sense she has in mind, actually is compatible with democracy, then what precisely is her objection to Palin’s political philosophy?

If Cohn would speak plainly on this matter we might find that she and Sarah Palin agree—that theocracy in the sense so far undefined but envisioned by Marjorie Cohn is a bad thing. Or we might find that Cohn has a very muddled view about the nature of a theocracy, and perhaps even of a democracy.

Ms. Cohn may be president of the National Lawyers Guild. But this doesn’t indemnify her against the peculiar BlogLogic that we’ve explored and exposed in other posts at this blog.

* * *

Ms. Cohn’s article is archived at her own website.

Filed under BlogLogic, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Is Obama Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion?

October 23, 2008 9 Comments


There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. In other words, “pro-choice” is not just a euphemism for “pro-abortion.” The pro-abortion position is far more extreme than the pro-choice position. I’ll refer you to an argument for that in a moment.

First let’s ask the question: Is presidential candidate Barack Obama pro-choice or pro-abortion? In his public statements he has said he is pro-choice and that no one is pro-abortion. If he didn’t know better, I’d say this is naive. But he does know better, and his own record and future policy plans demonstrate that Barack Obama is pro-abortion. In fact, he is pro-abortion in the extreme. He is pro-actively pro-abortion.

I must confess, I find it difficult to believe that any American has such extreme views and will do everything in his power to make them a matter of enforceable law. But a recent article by Princeton University Professor of Jurisprudence, Robert P. George, makes the case with compelling force. If Professor George is right, then Americans who plan to vote in this election need to consider this carefully before they make their presidential choice. I urge you to read “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” at your earliest opportunity.

Here is the opening paragraph in Professor George’s chilling expose:

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Near the end of his piece, Professor George writes:

In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: “that question is above my pay grade.” It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator’s pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy – and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

Some reading this post may be thinking . . .

  • ‘Pro-choice’ . . . ‘pro-abortion,’ whatever—it’s just semantics.
  • I’m not a single-issue voter, and Obama’s strengths in other areas trump his weakness on this point.
  • I believe Obama is honest and sincere and has no hidden agendas. The Princeton professor must be the one with a hidden agenda.
  • There may be a handful of Americans who are pro-abortion extremists, and this is abhorrent and disgusting; but there’s no way a United States Senator on the cusp of winning a presidential election could possibly be this extreme.
  • This is the first opportunity to elect a person of color to the highest office in our Republic, and I’m willing to take a chance on Obama because of this unprecedented opportunity.

I assure you, we are not talking semantics here.

I understand the single-issue concern. But there are two things to say in this case. First, Obama’s unprecedented extremism on abortion is so extreme that no good he could possibly achieve as president could compensate for the permanent damage of his pro-abortion policies—not only to the unborn and the newly-born, but to many health-care professionals and women. Second, this is not a single-issue issue at all. If successful, Obama’s plan will constrain fundamental human liberties for many besides the unborn and the newly-born. Obama’s position on abortion is symptomatic of a political philosophy that is a direct threat to democratic freedom.

What about Obama’s honesty? You can’t tell whether a man is honest just by watching him on TV. You have to study his record and cross-examine his claims. Professor George does this in his article. Obama is not going to volunteer to go on television and talk about his position with this professor of jurisprudence. At most, he will make denials, not arguments that deal with the details of his record. Obama’s agenda, whatever it is, is hidden. By that I mean that he has not been candid about things we should like to know about him. If Professor George has an agenda, he at least has been clear in his claims and he has built a mountain of evidence that cannot simply be dismissed.

There is an extreme pro-abortion movement in this country. Leaders in the movement have been working a strategy for decades. They’ve raised millions of dollars. They understand the American democratic process. They have settled for small victories through less extreme advocates of a pro-choice position. They’ve patiently recruited charismatic individuals to their cause and groomed them for leadership of the movement for the next generation. It would be naive to believe anything else. The tectonic plates in this country are shifting. There is no reason why a major party candidate for the presidency could not, with the help of a minority of powerful insiders, sneak past the electorate into office with an agenda to “change the way politics is done in America,” an agenda that will challenge the moral integrity of American citizens and threaten social stability.

Barack Obama is the first black candidate on a major party ticket. Black men and women have every reason to be proud of the many black leaders, in business, in education, in politics, in the military. Every American should be proud of the progress that’s been made to break down racial barriers and ensure equal opportunity for all who share the American dream. I fully expect that we will eventually have a black president, and I welcome that prospect. I would encourage any voter who is eager to see a black person in that high office make that moment count. If Barack Obama is sworn in as President in January, that will be a historic moment, a proud moment for many black men, women and children. Many others besides will be excited and enthusiastic, and rightly so. But what will become of their pride if Obama disappoints and injects into our shared political bloodstream an ideology that threatens our core values as freedom-loving Americans?

Obama’s position on abortion and other fundamental issues has that potential. I predict, given his record, that this will be the effect if he is elected. Our social and political immune system will be tested then. But it is being tested now, as we contemplate the important choice of president in less than two weeks.

No one of us as individuals will ever have the kind of power a President Barack Obama would have to directly and profoundly influence abortion policy in this country. But we do make the decision whether Obama is invested with that kind of power and opportunity as one individual to transform our culture. And the outcome will be our responsibility.

Filed under Barack Obama, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Spinning Joe Biden

October 21, 2008 4 Comments


The Senator with the foot-shaped mouth fired off a real whopper this time:

Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

Barack Obama’s admirers are dumbfounded—that includes people running his campaign. How do you spin a statement like that? Biden’s remarks were so extensive and emphatic that even a retraction would do nothing to mitigate the unease he has created. Besides “the cynical electorate” already knows what retractions mean.

Media response should be interesting. If Obama really is “their candidate,” it may be gut-wrenching for them to report on this story. And let’s remember what “news reporting” means today—it means editorializing in an effort to influence viewers.

This time, Biden’s comments are not mere trifles. They are sober reminders of what everyone knows. The threat of more terror—the likes of which we may not have seen yet—is a real and present danger. That will still be true no matter who becomes President. But would an Obama presidency intensify the risk? That’s what Biden seemed to be saying. And no one can say it isn’t true, because no one knows that it’s false.

It is easy to see why a McCain presidency could have a different effect on our enemies. And now, consideration of that has suddenly become a factor in this election. Maybe this is the “October surprise” that pundits say could change the numbers that pollsters have been producing.

Foreign policy is back on the table, with only two weeks left in this election season. More specifically, the prospect of a new chain of crises has to be considered. Thus we find ourselves asking two questions:

  1. Is Barack Obama as ready as John McCain to lead our nation should new challenges come?
  2. Is it more likely that new challenges would come during an Obama presidency than during a McCain presidency?

Thanks to Joe Biden, the economy is not the only thing we’ll be thinking about when we vote on November 4th.

Filed under Barack Obama, Cultural Issues, Joe Biden, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

“It’s Time for a Black President”

October 21, 2008 7 Comments


“It’s time for a black President.” You’ve heard it and I’ve heard. But what could possibly be a good argument for this claim?

No, I’m not a racist for asking the question. I believe it will be time for a black President when the best candidate for the office happens to be black; but it won’t be because he or she is black.

So, can somebody explain why being black is a qualifying credential for being President?

* * *

What say you?

Filed under Politics Tagged with

Bill O’Reilly Goes Over the Top on the Angry Factor

October 20, 2008 Leave a comment


Bill O’Reilly is “looking out for you.” This, of course, presupposes that he knows two things about you: what you care about—your values, your priorities, that sort of thing—and what’s good for you.

Recently he’s been interviewing (interrogating?) guests about the economic fiasco brought down on us by recent events and the agents behind those events. He now suggests (“suggests” is too mild here) that “the people” are angry. They’re angry at the government and all those CEOs who get paid scandalous amounts of money, because we now have to pay for the bailout we didn’t choose. In fact, “the people” are so angry that the economy is pretty much the only thing that matters to them right now. And “right now” is an election period.

OK. Time for a deep breath. Are people angry? I suppose so. Are they seething with anger? Are they so preoccupied with the state of the economy that anger is their dominant emotion right now? I don’t see signs of that among the people around me. It’s possible, of course, that O’Reilly knows “the people” better than I, though I am one of “the people.” I suspect, however, that O’Reilly’s schtick self-selects for people who fit a certain profile and who may be as angry as O’Reilly says they are.

I like it that O’Reilly pursues his guests with decent follow-up questions and exposes the “spin” for what it is. There isn’t enough of that in the media. I often cringe at the way O’Reilly conducts business on his show, and there are times when I wish he would ask more penetrating questions than he does. That’s right, more penetrating. But I digress.

I don’t presume to speak for “the people.” Speaking only for myself, I acknowledge my frustration with government and with this bailout/rescue idea. I’m not pleased with the way my family has been and will continue to be affected by the screwball decisions that have been made and will continue to be made. But Bill O’Reilly goes too far in representing the level of my frustration. Call it anger if you like, but my feelings about this are not so viscerally combustible that the economy is the only thing I care about in this election. I’m beginning to think it’s a media ploy, oddly endorsed both by Bill O’Reilly and by those he calls “the mainstream media.” I hope I’m not alone in this. I hope our economic woes have not lit such a fire that we are blinded by them and indifferent about other major challenges that we face in this country, other issues of long-term significance. I refer to the conduct of war with our enemies, the character and experience of our leaders, the future composition of the United States Supreme Court, and much else besides.

We’re at a place today where the media are telling us, “It’s the economy stupid.” And when the media are telling us what we’re supposed to think and feel, in that inimitably condescending way of theirs, I get suspicious. I don’t like being told how I feel when it’s not how I feel, and I don’t like being called stupid—especially by the media.

Filed under Media, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →